Elraglusib and chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a randomized controlled phase 2 trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Elraglusib and chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a randomized controlled phase 2 trial.
Item: Elraglusib and chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a randomized controlled phase 2 trial.
Rating: 59
Author: Αlpha¹

Mahalingam D, Shroff RT, Carneiro BA, Ji Y, Coveler AL, Cervantes A, Sahai V, Ploquin A, Hiret S, LoConte NK, Percent IJ, Lopez CD, Pernot S, Kavan P, Mulcahy M, Carr R, Giles FJ, Seifarth C, Ugolkov A, Weiskittel T, Fine G, Jaros M, Mazar AP, Bekaii-Saab TS

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 4 high issues for “Elraglusib and chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a randomized controlled phase 2 trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×3−1.5★
StatisticsStatistic did not reproduce−0.5★

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

Problems surfaced4 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.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions2

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Significance claim flips when recomputedRecomputed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Data authenticity concerns1

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Other integrity concernAssessed

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.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported phase 2 randomized trial with strong scientific premise, detailed methods, and comprehensive reporting of demographics, ethics, and data availability. The main weakness is a statistical inconsistency detected in one recomputed test (HR 0.32 with reported p=0.089 vs recomputed p=0.024), which warrants caution in interpreting that specific result, and the primary endpoint revision without sample size re-estimation.

Both reviewers agreed on study type (interventional) and on all dimensions except statistical analysis, where the deterministic statistics check revealed an inconsistency not flagged by either reviewer. The statistics check covered only 7 tests; the rest are unverified. The paper is a human clinical trial, so many checklist items (e.g., cell line authentication, housing conditions) are not applicable.

8 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 6 tests: 5 consistent, 1 inconsistent (1 change significance at p<.05); 5 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 1 via agent-written checks.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites extensive prior work on GSK-3β as a therapeutic target, including preclinical models and early-phase clinical trials of elraglusib, and acknowledges both strengths and limitations (e.g., toxicity of existing regimens, failure of immunotherapy). The rationale for the study follows logically from the cited evidence, and the paper addresses limitations of prior research by noting the need for new agents and the exploratory nature of some analyses.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a strong scientific premise by citing prior preclinical and clinical evidence for GSK-3β inhibition in pancreatic cancer and clearly links this to the study objectives.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 2-4]

“Glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta (GSK-3β), a serine/threonine kinase, has been identified as a potential therapeutic target in human pancreatic cancer.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“Because of the promising survival trends, this trial transitioned to a phase 2 randomized trial that also explored weekly dosing of elraglusib with GnP.”