Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.
Item: Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Parker CC, Kynaston H, Cook AD, Clarke NW, Catton CN, Cross WR, Petersen PM, Persad RA, Pugh CA, Saad F, Logue J, Payne H, Bower LC, Brawley C, Rauchenberger M, Barkati M, Bottomley DM, Brasso K, Chung HT, Chung PWM, Conroy R, Falconer A, Ford V, Goh CL, Heath CM, James ND, Kim-Sing C, Kodavatiganti R, Malone SC, Morris SL, Nabid A, Ong AD, Raman R, Rodda S, Wells P, Worlding J, Parulekar WR, Parmar MKB, Sydes MR, RADICALS investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 4 high issues for “Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.”

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

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★
CitationsUnresolved reference−0.25★
LinksLink inconsistent with the paper−0.25★

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

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

Broken references and links2

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.

Data/code link contradicts the paperRecomputed
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.

This is a well-conducted phase 3 randomised controlled trial with rigorous design, clear reporting, and appropriate statistical methods. The paper is transparent about its limitations and provides a data sharing statement. Minor reporting gaps include the lack of explicit statistical software identification and race/ethnicity data, plus a few copyedit issues in tables.

Both reviewers independently scored all dimensions and agreed on all statuses; no divergence to reconcile. The study type is interventional (phase 3 RCT). Non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded. The statistics verification covered only a subset of tests (4 recomputed consistently); other statistics remain unverified. The citation check flagged one reference not found in registry.

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

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

Recomputed 4 tests: 4 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 2 via agent-written checks.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites three prior phase 3 trials (RTOG 0534, GETUG-AFU 16, RTOG 9601) and notes that none compared different durations of ADT in the postoperative setting. The hypothesis that long-course ADT would be more effective is explicitly stated. Limitations of prior work (e.g., lack of duration comparisons) are addressed by the trial design.

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 clear scientific premise by citing prior trials and articulating a logical hypothesis.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“Radiotherapy is also commonly used after radical prostatectomy, but only three phase 3 randomised controlled trials in this setting have assessed the addition of ADT, and none have compared different durations of ADT.”