Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Effects of Cooking with Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Biomass on Stunting in Infants.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Effects of Cooking with Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Biomass on Stunting in Infants.
Item: Effects of Cooking with Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Biomass on Stunting in Infants.
Rating: 39
Author: Αlpha¹

Checkley W, Thompson LM, Sinharoy SS, Hossen S, Moulton LH, Chang HH, Waller L, Steenland K, Rosa G, Mukeshimana A, Ndagijimana F, McCracken JP, Díaz-Artiga A, Balakrishnan K, Garg SS, Thangavel G, Aravindalochanan V, Hartinger SM, Chiang M, Kirby MA, Papageorghiou AT, Ramakrishnan U, Williams KN, Nicolaou L, Johnson M, Pillarisetti A, Rosenthal J, Underhill LJ, Wang J, Jabbarzadeh S, Chen Y, Dávila-Román VG, Naeher LP, McCollum ED, Peel JL, Clasen TF, HAPIN Investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 1★ (Critical), 3 critical, 4 high issues for “Effects of Cooking with Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Biomass on Stunting in Infants.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 16, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

1 / 5

Critical — a demonstrable failure

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

StatisticsImpossible or misreported statistic ×3−3★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★
CitationsUnresolved reference−0.25★

A demonstrable critical failure caps the rating at the minimum, regardless of the deductions above.

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) covered 23 of 26 reported means. The other 3 do not state their group size where the value is printed, and these checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so they were not checked.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced3 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Summary statistic impossible for the stated N (GRIM/GRIMMER)Recomputed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

Broken references and links1

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

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

• SPRITE: SD 1.1 exceeds the maximum possible (0.19) for n=1186 values on a [-0.22, 0.21] scale with mean -0.1
• SPRITE: SD 1 exceeds the maximum possible (0.22) for n=365 values on a [-0.22, 0.21] scale with mean 0
• SPRITE: SD 1 exceeds the maximum possible (0.19) for n=339 values on a [-0.22, 0.21] scale with mean -0.1

This is a well-conducted RCT with a clear scientific premise, rigorous design, and transparent reporting. The main weaknesses are the lack of detailed ethics committee names and informed consent description in the main text, and the vague data availability statement. Minor reporting gaps include unspecified LPG stove model and lack of explicit CONSORT adherence.

Both reviewers agreed on study type (interventional). The synthesis weighted specific evidence; where reviewers diverged (e.g., randomization method detail, ethics reporting), the more conservative rating was adopted when the evidence supported a reporting gap. The statistics verification covered only a subset of tests; the 3 inconsistent recomputations were not detailed and may be due to rounding, so they do not change the pass status but warrant caution.

4 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Recomputed 1 test: 1 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 via agent-written checks. 3 reported summary statistics mathematically impossible for the stated N (SPRITE).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites multiple studies and meta-analyses linking household air pollution to stunting, and the rationale for the trial is well-articulated. The paper also discusses limitations of prior observational studies and the need for a randomized trial.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with extensive prior work and a logical rationale linking household air pollution to stunting.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“A meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a 19% higher risk of stunting among children younger than 5 years of age who were exposed to household air pollution than among those who were not exposed.”