Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

UCA1 Regulates the Growth and Metastasis of Pancreatic Cancer by Sponging miR-135a · 10.3727/096504017x14888987683152

Name: Verified Rigor Record — UCA1 Regulates the Growth and Metastasis of Pancreatic Cancer by Sponging miR-135a · 10.3727/096504017x14888987683152
Item: UCA1 Regulates the Growth and Metastasis of Pancreatic Cancer by Sponging miR-135a · 10.3727/096504017x14888987683152
Rating: 39
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

Read full text

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · July 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

CRITICAL

Critical rigor failure · Interventional Study

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: lowEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

Critical findings

• other (high, corroborated): The paper shows a retraction notice at the very end of the article: 'Retraction: UCA1 Regulates the Growth and Metastasis of Pancreatic Cancer by Sponging miR-135a.' This indicates the work is retracted, which is a critical integrity concern.
• other (high, corroborated): The paper has been retracted, as indicated in the header. This raises serious concerns about the validity of the findings.

This is a retracted paper with severe reporting deficiencies across all rigor dimensions. Key strengths include a clear scientific premise and fairly detailed methods, but the paper lacks data availability, has inadequate statistical reporting, missing biological variable details, and insufficient ethical approvals documentation. The retraction is the overriding integrity concern.

This is a post-publication audit. The copyedit pass and integrity verification components were also considered. The paper has been retracted, which is the most important finding. The dimension scores are based on the reporting in the paper as published, but the retraction supersedes all other findings.

11 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

12 integrity concerns flagged (2 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions1 pass · 5 warn · 2 fail

11 major claims1 overstated10 supported

The introduction cites multiple studies on UCA1's role in bladder, breast, lung, gastric, colorectal, and hepatocellular cancers, as well as miR-135a's tumor-suppressive role in pancreatic cancer. It states that 'we are still far from a complete understanding of the possible mechanism of UCA1 in PC tumorigenesis and metastasis' and that 'few studies have mentioned the interaction between miR-135a and lncRNAs in PDAC,' which provides a rationale for the study. The limitations of prior work are implicitly addressed by the study's aim to explore the UCA1-miR-135a interaction.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior work on UCA1 and miR-135a in various cancers, providing a logical rationale for the study, and acknowledging gaps in prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-4]

“Overexpressed UCA1 in bladder cancer was proven to promote cell proliferation and migration and enhance drug resistance. In addition, upregulated UCA1 has been reported to exert a carcinogenic effect in several other cancers such as breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“In this study, we aimed to explore the mechanism of UCA1 in the metastasis of PC.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“However, we are still far from a complete understanding of the possible mechanism of UCA1 in PC tumorigenesis and metastasis.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior work on UCA1 and miR-135a in various cancers and pancreatic cancer, provides a logical rationale for the study, and partially addresses limitations of prior work.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 3-5]

“Overexpressed UCA1 in bladder cancer was proven to promote cell proliferation and migration and enhance drug resistance... A recent study mentioned that UCA1 promoted tumorigenesis in PC.”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

“In this study, we aimed to explore the mechanism of UCA1 in the metastasis of PC.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 3-4]

“The authors state that we are far from a complete understanding of the mechanism of UCA1 in PC and that few studies have mentioned the interaction between miR-135a and lncRNAs in PDAC, implying a gap.”

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

The paper adequately establishes the scientific premise by citing prior work on UCA1 and miR-135a, providing a logical rationale for the study, and identifying a gap in the literature.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“The introduction cites references 8-15 on UCA1 overexpression in bladder, breast, lung, gastric, colorectal, and hepatocellular carcinoma, but does not discuss strengths or weaknesses of these studies.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“In this study, we aimed to explore the mechanism of UCA1 in the metastasis of PC.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“few studies have mentioned the interaction between miR-135a and lncRNAs in PDAC”

The study uses cell lines and a xenograft mouse model. Randomization method and unit are not reported for the in vivo experiment. Blinding is not mentioned. No a priori power analysis is provided. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for the clinical samples are not stated. Outlier handling is not described. However, appropriate controls (scramble siRNA, mock, negative controls) are used, and the in vitro experiments were performed at least three times (replicate distinction). The in vivo experiment used 5 mice per group, but independent replication is not reported.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsNOT REPORTED

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitNOT REPORTED

inclusion exclusionNOT REPORTED

randomization methodNOT REPORTED

replicate distinctionADEQUATE

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design is partially reported; key elements like randomization, blinding, and power analysis are missing, but controls and replication are addressed.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Cell Transfection]

“The mock and fragments were designed as the negative control of miR-135a and UCA1, respectively.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“All experiments were performed at least three times.”

absence[Methods, entire section]

Randomization, blinding, power analysis, inclusion/exclusion, and outlier handling are not reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study design is generally appropriate for in vitro and in vivo work, but randomization and blinding are not described, and no power analysis or pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria are reported.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, entire text]

Randomization method is not reported for any experiment.

absence[Materials and Methods, entire text]

Blinding of investigators is not reported.

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Cell Transfection]

“The mock and fragments were designed as the negative control of miR-135a and UCA1, respectively.”

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

The study design lacks critical elements such as randomization, blinding, power analysis, and clear replication distinction, leading to a fail rating.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, all sections]

No randomization method described.

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Cell Viability Analysis]

“Experiments were done in triplicate.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Cell Transfection]

“The mock and fragments were designed as the negative control of miR-135a and UCA1, respectively.”

For the mouse model, sex ('male') and age ('6- to 8-week-old') are reported, but weight and health status of mice are not. Housing conditions for mice (SPF) are named but no detail on light cycle, temperature, or enrichment is given. For human subjects, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidities are not reported; only that 50 pairs of PC and adjacent normal tissues were collected. The species/strain of mice is reported as 'athymic nude mice' but without substrain or vendor.

Sub-criteria

demographicsNOT REPORTED

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthINADEQUATE

housing conditionsINADEQUATE

species strain sourceINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Biological variables are partially reported; sex and age of mice are given, but health status, housing conditions, and human demographics are missing.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

“6- to 8-week-old male athymic nude mice”

absence[Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

Housing conditions are not reported.

absence[Methods, Clinical Sample Collection]

Human demographics are not reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

Biological variables are partially reported: sex and age of mice are given, but health status and housing conditions are missing; demographic details for human patients are absent.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

“4 × 10^6 cells were subcutaneously inoculated into 6- to 8-week-old male athymic nude mice.”

paraphrase[Materials and Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

“The methods describe injecting cells into SPF nude mice, but no specific housing conditions (cycle, temperature) are given.”

absence[Materials and Methods, Clinical Sample Collection]

No human demographics are reported.

FAILReviewer 3· 90% conf

Reporting of biological variables is insufficient; only sex is adequately reported for the animal model, while age, weight, health, strain source, and housing are missing or incomplete.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

“6- to 8-week-old male athymic nude mice”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

“6- to 8-week-old male athymic nude mice”

absence[Materials and Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

No source or strain details for mice.

The human study states 'experimental protocols were approved by the clinical research ethics committees of the Affiliated Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University,' which meets the naming standard. The animal study states 'carried out in accordance with a protocol approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)' but does not specify the institution or provide a protocol number, making it inadequate. Informed consent for human subjects is not mentioned explicitly, only that specimens were collected; this is a reporting gap. Regulatory compliance is not stated for either.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementINADEQUATE

informed consentNOT REPORTED

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 90% conf

Ethical approvals are mentioned but lack specific details; the human ethics statement names a committee but no protocol number, and the animal statement is vague.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Clinical Sample Collection]

“all the experimental protocols were approved by the clinical research ethics committees of the Affiliated Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University”

direct quote[Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

“All animal experiments were carried out in accordance with a protocol approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).”

absence[Methods, Clinical Sample Collection]

Informed consent is not reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals are mentioned for both human and animal studies, but the animal statement lacks a named committee and protocol number, while the human statement is adequate.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Clinical Sample Collection]

“All the experimental protocols were approved by the clinical research ethics committees of the Affiliated Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

“All animal experiments were carried out in accordance with a protocol approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).”

absence[Materials and Methods, Clinical Sample Collection]

Informed consent for human tissue samples is not reported.

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

Ethical approvals are partially reported: human tissue collection has an ethics committee approval but lacks informed consent, and animal work has IACUC approval but regulatory compliance is vague.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Clinical Sample Collection]

“all the experimental protocols were approved by the clinical research ethics committees of the Affiliated Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University”

absence[Materials and Methods, Clinical Sample Collection]

No mention of informed consent from patients.

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model]

“All animal experiments were carried out in accordance with a protocol approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).”

Cell lines are identified with source (ATCC). Reagents like media, FBS, TRIzol, and kits are identified with catalog numbers. Primer sequences are provided. Software (ImageJ, FACSCaliber) is named but versions are not given. Antibodies for MMP-2 and MMP-9 are mentioned but without catalog numbers or RRIDs. Mycoplasma testing is not reported. The lentiviral vector is not fully identified.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingNOT REPORTED

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedINADEQUATE

cell line authenticationADEQUATE

software tools identifiedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Key resources are partially identified; cell lines and some reagents are adequately described, but antibodies and software lack version details, and mycoplasma testing is not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Cell Line Culture]

“Five human PC cell lines (SW1990, BxPC-3, MiaPaCa-2, PANC-1, and CAPAN-1) and normal human pancreatic duct epithelial (HPDE) cells were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA, USA).”

direct quote[Methods, Immunohistochemistry]

“The sections were then incubated with primary antibodies directed against matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and MMP-9 overnight at 4°C.”

absence[Methods, Cell Line Culture]

Mycoplasma testing is not reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Key reagents and cell lines are identified with sources, but antibodies lack catalog numbers and clone information, and software versions are not fully provided.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Immunohistochemistry]

“The sections were then incubated with primary antibodies directed against matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and MMP-9 overnight at 4°C.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Cell Line Culture]

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Tumor Sphere Formation Assay]

“Sphere sizes were measured by ImageJ software.”

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

Key resources are poorly identified: antibodies lack details, cell lines are not authenticated, no mycoplasma testing, mouse strain source missing, and software versions are absent.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Immunohistochemistry]

“primary antibodies directed against matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and MMP-9”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Cell Line Culture]

“purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA, USA)”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Tumor Sphere Formation Assay]

“ImageJ software”

The paper states 'Student's t-test' but does not specify whether it is one- or two-tailed, nor does it check assumptions like normality or equal variance. Exact p-values are not given; only thresholds (p<0.05, p<0.01, p<0.001) are reported. No effect sizes or confidence intervals are provided. Statistical software is not identified. Data presentation uses bar graphs with SD but no individual data points. With 0 of 7 applicable sub-criteria adequate, the dimension fails.

Sub-criteria

tests namedINADEQUATE

exact p valuesNOT REPORTED

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedNOT REPORTED

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Statistical analysis is basic; tests are named (Student's t-test), but assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are not reported (only thresholds), and effect sizes/confidence intervals are absent.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“All results are presented as mean ± SD and evaluated with a Student's t-test.”

direct quote[Results, various]

“p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001”

absence[Methods, Statistical Analysis]

Assumptions, effect sizes, and software are not reported.

FAILReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical reporting is critically inadequate: only Student's t-test is named, assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are not reported, effect sizes and confidence intervals are absent, data presentation often uses bar charts without individual points, and the test used is not appropriate for a single comparison across multiple groups.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“All results are presented as mean ± SD and evaluated with a Student’s t-test. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.”

direct quote[Results, various figure legends]

“(*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 vs. UCA1 scramble).”

absence[Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis]

No statistical software is identified.

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

Statistical reporting is inadequate: only Student's t-test is named without assumption verification, exact p-values are not reported, effect sizes and CIs are absent, and software is not identified.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis]

“All results are presented as mean ± SD and evaluated with a Student’s t-test.”

direct quote[Results, various figure legends]

“** p < 0.01 vs. normal tissues”

absence[Materials and Methods, Statistical Analysis]

No statistical software identified.

The paper does not include a data availability statement. No data are deposited in a public repository. No accession numbers are provided. No custom code is shared. The only mention of data is in the context of clinical samples, but no access mechanism is described.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersNOT REPORTED

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 95% conf

No data or code availability is reported; the paper lacks any statement on data sharing, repository deposit, or code sharing.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement is present.

absence[Entire paper]

No repository deposit or accession numbers are reported.

absence[Entire paper]

No code sharing is mentioned.

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

No data availability statement is present, and no data or code has been deposited in any repository, which is a major omission for a study generating new molecular and animal data.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement is present.

absence[Entire paper]

No repository deposit is mentioned.

absence[Entire paper]

No code sharing is mentioned.

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

No data or code availability is reported; the paper lacks any statement on data access, repository deposits, or code sharing.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data availability statement.

absence[Entire manuscript]

No repository deposit mentioned.

Methods are described in sufficient detail for replication (cell culture, transfection, assays). Limitations are discussed in the introduction and discussion (e.g., 'we are still far from a complete understanding'). Conclusions are proportional to the evidence (e.g., 'UCA1 works as an oncogene by targeting miR-135a'). However, no trial registration is applicable (preclinical). No reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE) is mentioned. Funding is acknowledged (Key Project of Doctoral Research of Liaoning Provincial Department of Education), and a conflict of interest statement is provided ('The authors declare no conflicts of interest'). All outcomes appear to be reported.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Reporting is partially transparent; methods are described in detail, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are proportional, but no trial registration, reporting guideline, or funding/COI statement is present.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, entire section]

“Total RNA was extracted from tissue specimens and cell lines using the TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) according to the protocol.”

direct quote[Acknowledgments]

“This work was funded by the Key Project of Doctoral Research of Liaoning Provincial Department of Education (201601417). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

absence[Entire paper]

No reporting guideline is mentioned.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Methods are described with sufficient detail for some replication, but no trial registration, reporting checklist, or statement of all outcomes is provided, and limitations are discussed only superficially. Conclusions are mostly proportional to the in vitro/in vivo evidence.

Evidence

paraphrase[Materials and Methods, various sections]

“The methods provide step-by-step protocols for cell culture, transfection, qPCR, flow cytometry, etc., with specific reagents and conditions.”

absence[Materials and Methods, entire text]

No reporting guideline is mentioned.

direct quote[Acknowledgments]

“This work was funded by the Key Project of Doctoral Research of Liaoning Provincial Department of Education (201601417). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

Reporting transparency is overall adequate: methods are detailed, outcomes are reported, funding and COI are stated, though a reporting guideline is not referenced and limitations are only briefly discussed.

Evidence

paraphrase[Materials and Methods, entire section]

“The methods section describes cell culture, transfection, MTT, flow cytometry, wound healing, Transwell, luciferase, and animal experiments in detail.”

direct quote[Acknowledgments]

“This work was funded by the Key Project of Doctoral Research of Liaoning Provincial Department of Education (201601417). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

paraphrase[Discussion]

“The discussion mentions that the mechanism is 'less well characterized' but does not explicitly discuss limitations of the study design.”

29 copyedit issues flagged (3 major): mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Checked 35 references: 33 verified — 2 not checked.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The paper is retracted and should not be cited. An informed reader should treat all findings as potentially invalid. The analysis is presented for auditing purposes only.

1.
CRITICALother
Acknowledge the retraction status in any response or correction and explain it to readers; do not promote the paper's findings as valid.
The paper is retracted, which is the most critical integrity finding and invalidates the published results.
2.
HIGHother
Address all internal contradictions: in the Abstract, change 'downregulated level of UCA1 was detected in cell lines' to 'upregulated' to match the Results; in the Results section, change 'miR-138' to 'miR-135a' throughout; in the Discussion, change 'miR-135a was upregulated' to 'downregulated' to match the data; in the 'miR-135a Offsets the Role of UCA1' section, ensure the cell line name matches between text (PANC-1) and figure legend (SW1990).
Internal contradictions undermine the credibility of the findings and would be flagged by readers or reviewers; they must be resolved for the paper to be considered coherent.
3.
HIGHother
Add a data availability statement, deposit raw data (qPCR, Western blot images, flow cytometry files) in a public repository (e.g., Figshare, Zenodo, GEO), and include accession numbers in the paper.
No data availability statement or repository deposit exists; this is a major reporting gap that prevents independent verification and violates many journal policies.
4.
HIGHstatistics
Replace all threshold p-values (e.g., p<0.05, p<0.01) with exact p-values (e.g., p=0.023) in the Results section and figure legends.
Exact p-values are standard for reporting and allow readers to assess the strength of evidence; threshold-only reporting is insufficient for independent verification.
5.
HIGHstatistics
Report effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d, fold-change with 95% CI) for all comparisons, not just p-values.
Effect sizes and confidence intervals provide information about the magnitude and precision of effects, which p-values alone do not convey.
6.
HIGHstatistics
In the Statistical Analysis section, specify whether the Student's t-test was one- or two-tailed and whether it was paired or unpaired, and state the software used (e.g., GraphPad Prism, SPSS) with version.
Incomplete specification of statistical tests and software is a reporting gap that prevents replication and verification.
7.
HIGHother
In the Results section, for the claim that UCA1 is detected by Western blotting, explain how a lncRNA was detected by a protein-detection method, or correct the text if the claim is erroneous.
Using Western blotting to detect a lncRNA is methodologically implausible and raises serious integrity concerns unless it is a protein product of the UCA1 gene, which is not claimed.
8.
HIGHother
Temper the claim 'The UCA1–miR-135a pathway provides new insight for PC treatment' to reflect the preliminary in vitro and in vivo correlative data, such as 'These findings suggest a potential regulatory role of the UCA1-miR-135a axis in PC progression that requires further validation.'
The claim is overstated given the preclinical nature of the study; the retraction note further invalidates the claim.
9.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the major typo in Figure 4 legend: change 'miR-138' to 'miR-135a'.
Mislabeling a key miRNA in a figure legend is a major copyedit issue that could mislead readers.
10.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the inconsistency in the Abstract and Results regarding UCA1 expression: ensure the Abstract does not say 'downregulated level of UCA1 was detected in cell lines' when the data show upregulation.
Abstract must accurately reflect the results; contradictory statements seriously damage credibility.
11.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the figure legends: in Figure 4 legend, change '** p < 0.001' to '** p < 0.01' to match the text; in Figure 3 legend, panel D, change 'wound healing assay' to 'Transwell invasion assay'.
Inconsistent p-value thresholds and mislabeled assays in figure legends are reporting errors that reduce transparency.
12.
MEDIUMethics
Add informed consent statement for the collection of human tissue samples in the Clinical Sample Collection section.
Informed consent for human subjects is a fundamental ethical requirement and is not reported.
13.
MEDIUMethics
Add the specific institution and protocol number for the IACUC approval in the Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model section.
The current animal ethics statement is vague and lacks a verifiable protocol number.
14.
MEDIUMrigor
Describe randomization method and blinding for the in vivo experiment (e.g., 'mice were randomly assigned to groups using a random number generator' and 'the investigator was blinded to group allocation during outcome assessment') in the Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model section.
Randomization and blinding reduce bias in animal studies; their absence is a major methodological gap.
15.
MEDIUMrigor
Distinguish between biological and technical replicates in the Statistical Analysis section, and report the number of independent biological replicates for each experiment.
Without this distinction, the 'n' used for statistical testing is unclear, affecting the validity of the analysis.
16.
MEDIUMrigor
Report housing conditions for mice (light-dark cycle, temperature, humidity, enrichment) in the Subcutaneously Xenografted Mouse Model section.
Housing conditions are a biological variable that can affect experimental outcomes and are required for reproducibility.
17.
MEDIUMrigor
Include catalog numbers and RRIDs for all antibodies (MMP-2, MMP-9) in the Immunohistochemistry section.
Antibody identification is essential for reproducibility; the current description lacks vendors, catalog numbers, and dilutions.
18.
MEDIUMrigor
Add a statement on mycoplasma testing for all cell lines, with method and result, in the Cell Line Culture section.
Mycoplasma contamination can affect cell behavior and experimental results; its absence is a standard rigor issue.
19.
LOWcopyedit
Remove the duplicate title and author line from the Abstract header.
The duplicate text is a formatting artifact that should be removed for a clean manuscript.
20.
LOWrigor
Provide version numbers for all software used (e.g., ImageJ 1.53, FACSCalibur software version) in the relevant Methods subsections.
Software versioning is part of resource identification and aids reproducibility.

Full text (39,610 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →