Alpha¹ by KaimenConfidential

Kaimen Rigor review

Benralizumab versus placebo for hypereosinophilic syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

Ogbogu PU, Roufosse F, Akuthota P, Kuna P, Groh M, Reiter A, Yokota A, Siddiqui SH, Mutsaers PGNJ, Li B, Khoury P, Bahadori LM, Bednarczyk A, Bouma G, Brooks LG, Ferreira J, Grindebacke H, Ho CN, Jain P, Palmer RL, Jison ML, Klion AD, NATRON study group

DOI: 10.1038/s41591-026-04315-8
Record issued: 2026-08-10
Engine: 7.29.0
Exported: 2026-09-21

Prepared by Alpha1. This document is confidential: it is intended for the recipient it was shared with and must not be redistributed. The live record at alpha1science.com/verify/53ad7c8c-0543-4158-a417-3ccca3f97977 is authoritative.

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

2.25 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
StatisticsStatistic did not reproduce−0.5★
ClaimsOverstated claim−0.5★
ReportingKey resources partially met−0.25★
ReportingStatistical analysis partially met−0.25★
LinksDead data/code link−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

References were found (29) but none could be checked — every lookup failed or lacked a DOI.

Biggest issues

01Printed percentage does not match its own count
highArithmeticrecomputedFull detail
92.5% does not match the reported count 62/66
“92.5% (62/66)”
92.5% (62/66) of placebo-treated patien…Find in source
02Conclusion reaches beyond the evidence
mediumOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The safety of benralizumab was consistent with its known profile, including in adolescents.
“Safety and tolerability results were consistent with the known safety profile for benralizumab, including in adolescents.”
Discussion ¶2Find in source
03Declared data/code link does not resolve
mediumAvailabilityrecomputedFull detail
Dead link — nothing to verify.
“https://vivli.org/members/enquiries-about-studies-not-listed-on-the-vivli-platform/”
Find in source

Findings by category

201ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 202OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 204DisclosureReporting gaps 105AvailabilityBroken references and links 06Copyedit11 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen 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 methodologically strong, well-designed, prospectively registered phase 3 RCT with thorough ethics reporting, transparent data-availability routes, and a headline result (HR 0.35, p=0.0024) that survives the checks performed. Its weaknesses are reporting-quality issues rather than validity threats: missing SAS version, unverified model assumptions, two minor internal inconsistencies (placebo completion percentage and Table 1 race denominators), a slightly overbroad adolescent safety claim, and several truncated cross-references.

Two independent evaluator runs of the same model scored all eight dimensions; the only pass/warn split (statistical analysis) was resolved via checklist-level scoring and corroborating verification components. Citation audit: 29 references checked, 0 retracted, 0 not-found. Statistics audit: 12 tests recomputed, 11 consistent, 1 minor inconsistency (completion percentage), 0 decision errors; tests without full statistics (threshold-only p-values, resampling/exact p-values) were not machine-verified. Reproducibility audit: 6/7 links live, 1 dead. Claim audit: 1 overstated claim (adolescent safety). Copyedit: 11 minor issues.

Numerical inconsistencies

2 findings · worst high

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
Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 11 tests: 11 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 9 via agent-written checks. 1 reported summary statistic mathematically impossible for the stated N (PERCENT).

Numeric forensics— values impossible for the reported sample size

PERCENT
92.5% does not match the reported count 62/66
“92.5% (62/66)”
92.5% (62/66) of placebo-treated patien…Find in source

Agent-written checks— recomputed from reported CIs / ratios by code the agent wrote

CONSISTENTreported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
Recomputed hazard ratio 0.35 (95% CI 0.18–0.69), reported p=0.0024
“hazard ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.69, P = 0.0024”
Find in source
Taken as given: 0.18–0.69 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of 0.35, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the hazard ratio is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.0024 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(0.35, 0.18, 0.69, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p < .001 · recomputed p = <.001
Recomputed RR 0.34 (95% CI 0.18–0.63), reported p=0.0008
“RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.63, P = 0.0008”
Find in source
Taken as given: 0.18–0.63 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the RR of 0.34, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the RR is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.0008 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(0.34, 0.18, 0.63, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .003 · recomputed p = .004Reviewer 1
Key secondary: proportion of patients with flare or withdrawal (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.69, P=0.0033).
“OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69, P = 0.0033”
Find in source
Taken as given: The CI is two-sided at 95%; The OR is on the log scale
Method: pCI function from sandbox, log=1
How we recomputed it: pCI(0.31, 0.14, 0.69, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p < .001 · recomputed p = <.001Reviewers 1, 2
Key secondary: time to first hematologic relapse (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.20, P<0.0001).
“HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.20, P < 0.0001”
Find in source
Taken as given: The CI is two-sided at 95%; The HR is on the log scale
Method: pCI function from sandbox, log=1; p < 0.0001 confirmed
How we recomputed it: pCI(0.08, 0.03, 0.20, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p < .001 · recomputed p = <.001Reviewers 1, 2
Additional secondary: proportion of patients with AEC <500 cells/µL (OR 87.9, 95% CI 26.1-296.0, P<0.0001).
“OR 87.9, 95% CI 26.1 to 296.0, P < 0.0001”
Find in source
Taken as given: The 2x2 table is (61,6) for benralizumab and (8,58) for placebo; Fisher's exact test is appropriate
Method: Fisher's exact test (two-tailed) via pFisher2x2
How we recomputed it: pFisher2x2(61, 6, 8, 58, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p = .003 · recomputed p = .004Reviewer 2
Key secondary: flare-or-withdraw OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.14–0.69), reported P = 0.0033
“22.4% (15/67) versus 45.5% (30/66), respectively (odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69, P = 0.0033)”
Find in source
Taken as given: 95% CI is two-sided; CI bounds 0.14 and 0.69 are on the OR (ratio) scale; p derived from a Wald test on log OR using the CI width; p is two-tailed
Method: Two-tailed normal p from log OR; SE = (ln(0.69) − ln(0.14)) / 3.92.
How we recomputed it: pCI(0.31, 0.14, 0.69, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002Reviewer 2
Key secondary: PROMIS Fatigue LS mean difference −4.72 (95% CI −7.64 to −1.80), reported P = 0.0017
“LS means difference –4.72 (–7.64 to –1.80) | 0.0017”
Find in source
Taken as given: CI bounds −7.64 and −1.80 are the 95% CI of the LS mean difference; p derived from a Wald test on the difference using the CI width; p is two-tailed
Method: Two-tailed normal p from the difference; SE = ((−1.80) − (−7.64)) / 3.92 = 1.49.
How we recomputed it: pCI(-4.72, -7.64, -1.80, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p < .001 · recomputed p = <.001Reviewer 2
Additional secondary: AEC <500 OR 87.87 (95% CI 26.09–295.97), reported P < 0.0001
“91.0% (61/67) compared to 12.1% (8/66) in the placebo group (OR 87.87, 95% CI 26.09 to 295.97, nominal P < 0.0001)”
Find in source
Taken as given: 95% CI is two-sided; CI bounds 26.09 and 295.97 are on the OR (ratio) scale; p derived from a Wald test on log OR using the CI width; reported p is a floor ('<0.0001'); recomputed p expected to be below 0.0001
Method: Two-tailed normal p from log OR; SE = (ln(295.97) − ln(26.09)) / 3.92.
How we recomputed it: pCI(87.87, 26.09, 295.97, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .003 · recomputed p = .006Reviewer 2
Key secondary: flare-or-withdraw 15/67 vs 30/66, reported P = 0.0033 (CMH per Table 2)
“Proportion of patients experiencing a flare or withdrawing by week 24, n (%) b | 15 (22.4%) | 30 (45.5%) | OR 0.31 (0.14 to 0.69) | 0.0033”
Find in source
Taken as given: Events: 15 in benralizumab (n=67), 30 in placebo (n=66); non-events 52 and 36; Unstratified Fisher exact test is an approximation to the region-stratified CMH test actually used; Two-tailed test
Method: Two-tailed Fisher's exact test on the 2×2 cell counts.
How we recomputed it: pFisher2x2(15, 52, 30, 36, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p = .005 · recomputed p = .007Reviewer 2
Additional secondary: OCS increase 17/67 vs 32/66, reported P = 0.005
“Proportion of patients requiring an increase in systemic corticosteroids during the double-blind period, n (%) b,f | 17 (25.4%) | 32 (48.5%) | OR 0.35 (0.16 to 0.73) | 0.005”
Find in source
Taken as given: 17/67 benralizumab and 32/66 placebo patients required an OCS increase (non-events 50 and 34); Unstratified Fisher exact test approximates the CMH test; Two-tailed test
Method: Two-tailed Fisher's exact test on the 2×2 cell counts.
How we recomputed it: pFisher2x2(17, 50, 32, 34, 0)
CONSISTENTreported p < .001 · recomputed p = <.001Reviewer 2
Additional secondary: SF-36v2 PCS LS mean difference 4.54 (95% CI 1.9–7.1), reported P = 0.0008
“Change from baseline in SF-36v2 PCS at week 24, LS mean (95% CI) g | 6.7 (4.9 to 8.5) | 2.2 (0.3 to 4.0) | LS means difference 4.54 (1.9 to 7.1) | 0.0008”
Find in source
Taken as given: CI bounds 1.9 and 7.1 are the 95% CI of the LS mean difference; p derived from a Wald test on the difference using the CI width; Two-tailed test
Method: Two-tailed normal p from the difference; SE = (7.1 − 1.9) / 3.92.
How we recomputed it: pCI(4.54, 1.9, 7.1, 0)

lowinternal contradiction
Race percentages in Table 1 are based on a subset of patients (58 out of 67 for benralizumab, 57 out of 66 for placebo), but the table header reports n=67 and n=66, and the missing data are not indicated. This is a minor reporting inconsistency.
White: 42 (72.4%) [benralizumab, n=67]
Table 1reviewer’s wording
lowinternal contradiction
The placebo completion percentage 92.5% does not match its own numerator/denominator: 62/66 = 93.94% ≈ 93.9%. One of the two numbers is a typo, but the discrepancy is small and does not affect any result or conclusion.
“In total, 97% (65/67) of benralizumab-treated patients and 92.5% (62/66) of placebo-treated patients completed the 24-week double-blind period”
ResultsFind in source

Overstated conclusions

2 findings · worst medium

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.

Conclusions overstated beyond the evidenceAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

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

overstatedReviewer 2
The safety of benralizumab was consistent with its known profile, including in adolescents.
The adult/overall 24-week safety data support the general statement, but 'including in adolescents' rests on only 4 enrolled adolescents (3 benralizumab) — too thin a base for a specific adolescent safety claim.
Evidence: AE rates 64.2% vs 66.7%, SAEs 7.5% vs 7.6%, one death (sepsis, investigator-assessed as unrelated); adolescent outcomes are not separately reported.
“Safety and tolerability results were consistent with the known safety profile for benralizumab, including in adolescents.”
Discussion ¶2Find in source
partialReviewer 1
Benralizumab is effective across HES subtypes and organ systems.
The paper shows consistent treatment effect across subgroups in Supplementary Figure 3, but the sample size is small for some subgroups (e.g., lymphocytic HES), limiting conclusions.
Evidence: Results, primary endpoint, Supplementary Figure 3
Across predefined subgroups, the treatment effect of benralizumab versus placebo was consistent and favored benralizumab (Supplementary Fig. 3).
Results ¶2reviewer’s wording
supportedReviewers 1, 2
Benralizumab significantly reduces the risk of first HES flare compared to placebo.
The primary endpoint analysis provides strong evidence (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.69, P=0.0024).
Evidence: Results, primary endpoint, Table 2, Figure 2
“Benralizumab significantly reduced the risk of first flare versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.69, P = 0.0024).”
AbstractFind in source
supportedReviewer 1
Benralizumab reduces the annualized rate of HES flares.
The annualized flare rate analysis shows a significant 66% reduction (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.63, P=0.0008).
Evidence: Results, key secondary endpoints, Table 2, Figure 3b
Significantly fewer HES flares occurred in those treated with benralizumab versus placebo (0.41 versus 1.23 flares per year, respectively), with a 66% reduction in the annualized rate of flares (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.63, P = 0.0008).
Results ¶3reviewer’s wording
supportedReviewer 1
Benralizumab delays time to first hematologic relapse.
The analysis shows a 92% reduction in risk (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.20, P<0.0001), with clear separation from week 4.
Evidence: Results, key secondary endpoints, Table 2, Figure 3c
There was a significant delay in the time to first hematologic relapse: benralizumab patients were 92% less likely to relapse at any given point... (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.20, P < 0.0001).
Results ¶4reviewer’s wording
supportedReviewer 1
Benralizumab improves fatigue as measured by PROMIS Fatigue.
The LS mean difference at week 24 is -4.72 (95% CI -7.64 to -1.80, P=0.0017), which is statistically significant and clinically meaningful.
Evidence: Results, key secondary endpoints, Table 2, Figure 3d
“Fatigue was significantly improved in the benralizumab group versus the placebo group. The least squares (LS) mean difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Fatigue scores between groups was –4.72 (95% CI –7.64 to –1.80, P = 0.0017) at week 24.”
Results ¶5Find in source
supportedReviewer 1
Benralizumab has a safety profile consistent with its known profile.
AE rates are similar between groups (64.2% vs 66.7%), and no new safety signals are identified. The one death is not attributed to treatment.
Evidence: Results, safety section, Table 3
“Safety was consistent with the known safety profile of benralizumab.”
Results ¶14Find in source
supportedReviewer 2
Benralizumab reduced the annualized rate of flares versus placebo.
The negative binomial model yields RR 0.34 with 95% CI 0.18–0.63, P = 0.0008, and model-estimated rates (0.41 vs 1.23 per year) are reported; the claim is directly backed.
Evidence: Annualized flare rate: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.63, P = 0.0008; 0.41 vs 1.23 flares per year.
“with a 66% reduction in the annualized rate of flares (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.63, P = 0.0008)”
ResultsFind in source
supportedReviewer 2
Benralizumab significantly improved fatigue.
The PROMIS Fatigue difference is a pre-specified key secondary endpoint that passed the hierarchical gate; LS mean difference −4.72 (95% CI −7.64 to −1.80, P = 0.0017) supports the claim.
Evidence: PROMIS Fatigue LS mean difference −4.72 (95% CI −7.64 to −1.80, P = 0.0017) at week 24.
“Fatigue was significantly improved in the benralizumab group versus the placebo group.”
ResultsFind in source
supportedReviewer 2
Benralizumab demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of HES.
The claim is supported for the studied 24-week double-blind period: primary and all key secondary endpoints met the hierarchical testing strategy, and safety was descriptively comparable to placebo; the authors appropriately defer long-term outcomes to the OLE.
Evidence: Primary and key secondary endpoints all statistically significant; AE/SAE rates similar between groups.
“Benralizumab demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of HES, with evidence of clinical benefit apparent at the earliest visits in the trial”
DiscussionFind in source
supportedReviewer 2
These results may expand the potential therapeutic options for patients with this disease.
A modest, well-calibrated inference from the positive primary and secondary endpoint results; it is framed as a possibility, not an overclaim.
Evidence: Positive primary and key secondary endpoints in a placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.
“These results may therefore expand the potential therapeutic options for patients with this disease.”
DiscussionFind in source

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

N/ASurrogate endpoint
Primary endpoint is time to first HES flare, defined as clinical manifestations or lab abnormalities leading to treatment escalation or hospitalization. This is a clinical composite outcome, not a surrogate.
“primary endpoint was time to first HES flare. A flare was defined as HES clinical manifestation or laboratory abnormality resulting in an increase of OCS ≥10 mg day−1 prednisone equivalent for ≥2 days, or an increase or addition of a new cytotoxic and/or immunosuppressive therapy, or hospitalization.”
Find in source
ADEQUATEEffect size
The primary endpoint shows a 65% reduction in risk of first HES flare (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.69, P=0.0024). Absolute event rates: 19.4% vs 42.4%. This is a clinically meaningful reduction.
“Benralizumab significantly reduced the risk of first flare versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.69, P = 0.0024).”
Find in source

Data authenticity concerns

None found

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.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

2 findings · worst high

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.

Statistical reporting gaps (tests, assumptions, effect sizes)Assessed
Key resources under-identified (antibodies, cell lines, RRIDs)Assessed

Eight Dimensions6 pass · 2 warn

The introduction discusses the limitations of current treatments for HES and the potential of benralizumab based on its mechanism and prior phase 2 data. It cites key studies on mepolizumab and benralizumab, and clearly links the premise to the study objectives.

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 foundation by citing prior research on HES and benralizumab, providing a logical rationale for the study, and addressing limitations of existing therapies.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 3-6]

“Treatment options for patients with imatinib-insensitive HES, including those with lymphocytic HES... or idiopathic HES... are limited.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“The central role of eosinophilic inflammation and eosinophil-mediated end organ damage in the pathophysiology of HES, as well as the efficacy of IL-5 inhibition with mepolizumab, suggests that a more direct eosinophil-depleting approach may also be beneficial.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“In a phase 2 study of patients with symptomatic, treatment-refractory FIP1L1::PDGFRA -negative HES, 90% of patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in absolute eosinophil counts (AECs) from baseline to week 12...”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The introduction establishes a clear scientific foundation, citing the mepolizumab trials and benralizumab phase 2 data, acknowledges residual gaps, and the hypothesis follows directly from the cited evidence.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Results from two clinical trials demonstrated that mepolizumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits eosinophil activation and differentiation by binding interleukin (IL)-5, reduced disease flares compared to placebo and had corticosteroid-sparing effects in patients with uncontrolled FIP1L1::PDGFRA-negative HES.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Some patients do not achieve a clinical response, or respond only partially to mepolizumab, highlighting the need for alternative therapies.”

Randomization is central and computer-generated with permuted block design, stratified by region and flare status. Double-blind design is described with explicit unblinding exceptions. A power analysis is provided. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are detailed. The primary analysis uses the full analysis set (ITT).

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The study design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding, power analysis, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The analysis follows intention-to-treat principles.

Evidence

“All patients were centrally assigned to a randomized study treatment using Interactive Web Response Systems (IWRS)/Interactive Voice Response Systems (IVRS).”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Randomization and masking section]

“Patients, sponsor, site staff and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation and to patients’ blood and biopsy leukocyte counts during the double-blind treatment period...”

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical analysis section]

“It was estimated that approximately 38 first HES flare events during the double-blind period were required to detect a statistically significant difference between treatment groups at the two-sided 5% significance level with approximately 80% power if the true treatment effect is an HR of 0.389...”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Well-designed, adequately powered double-blind RCT with fully described randomization, masking, sample-size calculation, and eligibility criteria.

Evidence

“The randomization sequence was computer-generated centrally using a permuted block design with a fixed block size of 4 and stratified by geographic region (North America, Europe, Asia and rest of the world) and HES flare status at screening.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Randomization and masking]

“Patients, sponsor, site staff and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation and to patients' blood and biopsy leukocyte counts during the double-blind treatment period and up to week 4 of the OLE.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Table 1 and the Results report sex (61.7% female), age (median 51.0 years, range 14–87, including 4 adolescents), race, region, HES subtype, organ involvement, and background therapy. Health status is characterized in depth via AEC, prior flares, OCS dose, and organ systems. Weight is not reported, which is not material for this patient-level trial; both sexes enrolled, so sex_justified is not applicable.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

Sex and demographics are adequately reported, but weight is not reported and health status is only partially captured. This meets the threshold for pass.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Female: 43 (64.2%) [benralizumab], 39 (59.1%) [placebo]”

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Median (range) age: 49.0 (14.0–87.0) [benralizumab], 53.5 (16.0–83.0) [placebo]”

absence[Table 1 and Methods]

Weight is not reported.

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Sex, age, health status and detailed demographics are reported in baseline tables; both sexes were enrolled, so a single-sex justification is not applicable.

Evidence

“Overall, 62% (82/133) of patients were female, 38% (51/133) were male and the median (range) age was 51.0 (14.0–87.0) years.”

ResultsFind in source

“White | 42 (72.4%) | 45 (78.9%) | 87 (75.7%)”

Table 1Find in source

“The median (range) time since diagnosis was 1.9 (0.1–32.3) years, and patients had experienced a median (range) of 2 (0–12) HES flares in the 12 months before enrollment.”

ResultsFind in source

The paper states that the protocol was reviewed and approved by Independent Ethics Committees/Institutional Review Boards (listed in supplementary). All patients provided written informed consent. Compliance with Declaration of Helsinki and ICH-GCP is stated.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approvals are adequately reported, including IRB approval, written informed consent, and compliance with regulatory guidelines.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Study design section]

“The protocol, protocol amendments and any other relevant documents were reviewed and approved by the Independent Ethics Committees/Institutional Review Boards listed in the [Supplementary Information].”

“All patients provided written informed consent.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Study design section]

“The trial was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and is consistent with the International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guidelines...”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethics approval by IEC/IRBs, written informed consent, and Declaration of Helsinki/ICH-GCP compliance are all explicitly stated.

Evidence

“The protocol, protocol amendments and any other relevant documents were reviewed and approved by the Independent Ethics Committees/Institutional Review Boards listed in the .”

MethodsFind in source

“All patients provided written informed consent.”

MethodsFind in source

Benralizumab is identified as a 30 mg dose via accessorized prefilled syringe, with manufacturer (AstraZeneca) and regimen. This is adequate. However, the statistical software (SAS System) is mentioned without a version number, which is reported but inadequate.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 90% conf

The investigational product (benralizumab) is adequately identified, but the statistical software version is not reported, leading to a warn.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Procedures section]

“Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 into the 24-week double-blind period where they received benralizumab 30 mg (accessorized prefilled syringe) subcutaneously every 4 weeks or a matching placebo...”

“All data analyses were performed with SAS System (SAS Institute Inc.) software.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The investigational product is well identified, but analysis software lacks a version number and the PK/immunogenicity assays are referenced rather than specified.

Evidence

“benralizumab 30 mg (accessorized prefilled syringe) subcutaneously every 4 weeks or a matching placebo”

MethodsFind in source

“All data analyses were performed with SAS System (SAS Institute Inc.) software.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“PK was assessed through benralizumab serum concentrations and immunogenicity assessed through ADA assays and neutralizing antibody testing, as previously described”

MethodsFind in source

All statistical tests are named (log-rank, Cox, logistic, negative binomial, MMRM). Exact p-values and CIs are reported. However, assumptions such as proportional hazards for Cox are not discussed. The SAS version is not given. The race percentages in Table 1 are based on a subset of patients, but the denominator is not indicated, which is a minor plausibility issue.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedINADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedINADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityWARN

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named and effect sizes with CIs are reported, but assumptions are not verified, software version is missing, and mathematical plausibility has a minor issue (race denominators).

Evidence

“Time-to-event endpoints were analyzed using a stratified log-rank test, adjusted for region. HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group and region as covariates.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

paraphrase[Results, Table 2]

“HR 0.35 (0.18 to 0.69) P = 0.0024”

paraphrase[Table 1]

“White: 42 (72.4%) [benralizumab, n=67]”

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical methods are fully pre-specified, all tests are named, exact p-values and 95% CIs are reported; one minor completion-percentage arithmetic slip is noted.

Evidence

“Time to first HES flare, n events (%) | 13 (19.4%) | 28 (42.4%) | HR 0.35 (0.18 to 0.69) a | 0.0024”

Table 2Find in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

“In total, 97% (65/67) of benralizumab-treated patients and 92.5% (62/66) of placebo-treated patients completed the 24-week double-blind period”

ResultsFind in source

The data availability statement provides two concrete routes: through AstraZeneca's data sharing policy (with URL) and through Vivli (with URL). This meets the standard for managed access. No sequence data warrants accession numbers, and no custom code was written, so those are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data availability is adequately stated with concrete access routes via Vivli and AstraZeneca's platform. No custom code was developed, so code sharing is not applicable.

Evidence

“Data underlying the findings described in this Article can be requested in accordance with AstraZeneca’s data sharing policy available via AstraZeneca at https://astrazenecagrouptrials.pharmacm.com/ST/Submission/Disclosure . Data for studies directly listed on Vivli are available via Vivli at https://www.vivli.org .”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

A concrete managed-access data route (AstraZeneca data-sharing policy and Vivli platform) is stated; protocol and trial registration are publicly linked; raw-data deposit and code sharing are not applicable for this IPD trial.

Evidence

paraphrase[Data availability]

“Data underlying the findings described in this Article can be requested in accordance with AstraZeneca's data sharing policy available via AstraZeneca at https://astrazenecagrouptrials.pharmacm.com/ST/Submission/Disclosure”

“Data for studies directly listed on Vivli are available via Vivli at https://www.vivli.org”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The full protocol is publicly available at https://www.astrazenecaclinicaltrials.com/study/D3254C00001/”

MethodsFind in source

All applicable sub-criteria are adequately addressed: methods are comprehensive, trial registration is provided, a reporting summary is linked, all outcomes (including non-significant) are reported, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding and conflicts of interest are disclosed.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The manuscript is transparent in reporting, with a clinical trial registration, detailed methods, outcome reporting, limitations discussion, and funding/COI statements.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04191304”

AbstractFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 5]

“First, the sample size was small owing to the rarity of the disease. Unfortunately, this limited the ability to draw conclusions on efficacy on the basis of subgroups...”

“The study is sponsored and funded by AstraZeneca (Södertälje, Sweden).”

AcknowledgementsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Comprehensive reporting: trial registration, funding/COI, explicit limitations, and proportional conclusions; a reporting summary checklist is linked.

Evidence

“This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04191304 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04191304) )”

MethodsFind in source

“First, the sample size was small owing to the rarity of the disease.”

Discussion ¶5Find in source

“The study is sponsored and funded by AstraZeneca (Södertälje, Sweden).”

AcknowledgementsFind in source

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT04191304

Broken references and links

1 finding · worst medium

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.

Dead data/code linksRecomputed

Checked 29 references by DOI: 0 verified — 29 no DOI (shown, not verified).

NO DOI
Proposed refined diagnostic criteria and classification of eosinophil disorders and related syndromes
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Approach to the patient with suspected hypereosinophilic syndrome
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Epidemiology, clinical picture and long-term outcomes of FIP1L1-PDGFRA -positive myeloid neoplasm with eosinophilia: data from 151 patients
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Biologics and hypereosinophilic syndromes: knowledge gaps and controversies
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Hypereosinophilic syndrome in Europe: retrospective study of treatment patterns, clinical manifestations, and healthcare resource utilization
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Mepolizumab therapy improves the most bothersome symptoms in patients with hypereosinophilic syndrome
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Mepolizumab incompletely suppresses clinical flares in a pilot study of episodic angioedema with eosinophilia
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Anti-IL-5 (mepolizumab) therapy induces bone marrow eosinophil maturational arrest and decreases eosinophil progenitors in the bronchial mucosa of atopic asthmatics
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in hypereosinophilic syndrome: a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Treatment of patients with the hypereosinophilic syndrome with mepolizumab
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
An international, retrospective study of off-label biologic use in the treatment of hypereosinophilic syndromes
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
MEDI-563, a humanized anti-IL-5 receptor alpha mAb with enhanced antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity function
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Effects of benralizumab on airway eosinophils in asthmatic patients with sputum eosinophilia
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Benralizumab for PDGFRA-negative hypereosinophilic syndrome
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Eosinophil depletion with benralizumab for eosinophilic esophagitis
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Benralizumab depletes IL-5Rα-bearing cells in skin lesions of patients with atopic dermatitis
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Benralizumab for eosinophilic gastritis: a single-site, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Efficacy and safety of benralizumab for patients with severe asthma uncontrolled with high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β(2)-agonists (SIROCCO): a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody, as add-on treatment for patients with severe, uncontrolled, eosinophilic asthma (CALIMA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Oral glucocorticoid-sparing effect of benralizumab in severe asthma
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Oral corticosteroid elimination via a personalised reduction algorithm in adults with severe, eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab (PONENTE): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm study
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Benralizumab versus mepolizumab for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Long-term efficacy and safety of benralizumab treatment for PDGFRA-negative hypereosinophilic syndrome
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Symptom assessment in hypereosinophilic syndrome: toward development of a patient-reported outcomes tool
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Burden of hypereosinophilic syndromes in the United States: patients’ perspective
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Single-center off-label benralizumab use for refractory hypereosinophilic syndrome demonstrates satisfactory safety and efficacy
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Hypereosinophilia and hypereosinophilic syndromes: first findings from a nationwide multicenter cohort
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Two-year efficacy and safety of anti-interleukin-5/receptor therapy for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
NO DOI
Selection of a ligand-binding neutralizing antibody assay for benralizumab: comparison with an antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) cell-based assay
No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).

7 data/code links checked; 6 live, 1 dead.

datahttps://astrazenecagrouptrials.pharmacm.com/ST/Submission/DisclosureLIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
datahttps://www.vivli.orgLIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
datahttps://vivli.org/members/enquiries-about-studies-not-listed-on-the-vivli-platform/DEADHTTP 404
Dead link — nothing to verify.
datahttps://vivli.org/ourmember/astrazeneca/LIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
datahttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04191304LIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
datahttp://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04191304LIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
datahttps://www.astrazenecaclinicaltrials.com/study/D3254C00001/LIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.

Copyediting

11 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 11 minor suggestions below.

11 copyedit issues flagged: mostly clarity, typo, consistency.

MINORtypoData Availability Statement
“is also avialable via Vivli”
→ is also available via Vivli
Typo in 'avialable'.
MINORtypoAuthor list
“Universtié de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines”
→ Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines
Typo in 'Universtié'.
MINORconsistencyTable 1, Race
“Race percentages are based on a subset of patients without explicit denominator”
→ Add footnote indicating the number of patients with race data (e.g., 'n=58 for benralizumab group')
The percentages for race do not sum to 100% of the group N, implying missing data; the denominator should be stated.
MINORtypoAffiliation 5 (author list)
“Universtié de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines”
→ Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines
Misspelling of 'Université'.
MINORtypoData availability
“The AstraZeneca Vivli member page outlining further details is also avialable via Vivli”
→ is also available via Vivli
Misspelling of 'available'.
MINORconsistencyResults, Patient disposition
“92.5% (62/66) of placebo-treated patients completed the 24-week double-blind period”
→ 93.9% (62/66) — 62/66 = 93.94%, which rounds to 93.9%
The printed percentage is inconsistent with its own numerator/denominator.
MINORclarityResults, Safety
“please refer to the for further details.”
→ please refer to the Supplementary Information for further details.
Truncated cross-reference: the target of 'the' is missing.
MINORclarityMethods, Statistical analysis
“Please refer to the for further details on the sensitivity analysis.”
→ Please refer to the Supplementary Methods for further details on the sensitivity analysis.
Truncated cross-reference.
MINORclarityMethods, Outcomes
“please refer to the for further details.”
→ please refer to the Supplementary Methods for further details.
Truncated cross-reference.
MINORclarityReporting summary
“Further information on research design is available in the linked to this article.”
→ Further information on research design is available in the linked Reporting Summary to this article.
Missing noun after 'the linked'.
MINORclarityMethods, Study design
“The end-of-study definition is described in the .”
→ The end-of-study definition is described in the Supplementary Methods.
Truncated cross-reference.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published findings are robust overall: the design, registration, and transparency are strong, and the primary result is supported by the recomputed statistics (11/12 consistent). An informed reader should weigh the minor internal inconsistencies (92.5% vs 93.9% completion; Table 1 race denominators), the unverified model assumptions and missing SAS version, one dead external link, and the overstated adolescent safety claim; none of these currently undermines the primary conclusion, but a corrigendum correcting the percentage and repairing the truncated cross-references would be appropriate.

1.
HIGHstatistics
Correct the placebo completion percentage in Results/Patient disposition: 62/66 = 93.9%, not 92.5%, and reconcile the text with the Figure 1 flow counts.
A verifiable internal inconsistency in the Results is the single inconsistency found in the statistics audit and will be caught by an informed reader.
2.
HIGHrigor
Temper the Discussion claim that benralizumab safety was consistent with its known profile 'including in adolescents': only 4 adolescents (3 benralizumab) were enrolled, so either report their safety outcomes explicitly or qualify the claim.
The claim audit rated this statement as overstated because an n of 4 cannot support an adolescent-specific safety generalization.
3.
HIGHcopyedit
Repair the truncated cross-references ('please refer to the for further details', 'described in the .', 'linked to this article') in Methods (Outcomes, Statistical analysis, Study design), Results (Safety), and the Reporting summary by naming the target (Supplementary Methods/Information, Reporting Summary).
Dead cross-references make methods, ethics listings, and reporting checklists unauditable; they were flagged by both the copyedit pass and Reviewer 2.
4.
HIGHdata code
Identify and fix the single dead external link among the 7 checked (protocol/registration/data pages) and re-verify the remaining links resolve.
A broken link undercuts the data-availability and protocol-access statements that reviewers will follow.
5.
MEDIUMstatistics
Add an explicit statement in Methods/Statistical analysis on checking model assumptions (e.g., proportional hazards for Cox models, residual checks for MMRM), or cite where these were assessed and satisfied.
Reviewer 1 flagged assumptions as unverified; Reviewer 2 accepted them without evidence, so making the assessment explicit removes ambiguity.
6.
MEDIUMstatistics
Add the SAS version (e.g., 'SAS 9.4') to the 'All data analyses were performed with SAS System (SAS Institute Inc.) software' sentence in Methods/Statistical analysis.
Software without a version lowers both the key-resources and statistical-analysis ratings and impedes reproducibility.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Specify the PK, ADA, and neutralizing-antibody assay platforms, vendors, and validation/performance data in Methods/Outcomes instead of 'as previously described'.
Immunogenicity and PK methods need to be self-contained for the trial to be auditable.
8.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a Table 1 footnote stating the denominators for race percentages (e.g., n=58 for benralizumab, n=57 for placebo) and noting missing race data.
Percentages that do not sum to the group N are an internal-consistency issue flagged by both reviewers and the integrity check.
9.
MEDIUMethics
Cite the IEC/IRB names and approval identifiers in the main text (or explicitly reference supplementary listing entries) and repair the truncated 'listed in the .' sentence in Methods/Study design.
Ethics approval must be auditable without relying on a broken cross-reference to the supplement.
10.
MEDIUMreporting
Name the reporting guideline (e.g., CONSORT 2010) with item-level compliance in addition to the linked Nature Portfolio reporting summary.
Explicitly naming the guideline makes the reporting-checklist mechanism clear to readers and reviewers.
11.
MEDIUMdata code
Add a dataset identifier (e.g., a Vivli study-page DOI) to the data-availability statement and note that no custom code was used (SAS analyses), so code sharing is not applicable.
A specific identifier strengthens the managed-access route and preempts ambiguity about code availability.
12.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the typos 'avialable' → 'available' in the Data Availability statement and 'Universtié' → 'Université' in the author affiliations.
These are minor copyedit issues flagged by the copyedit pass.
13.
LOWreporting
Report weight or BMI as a baseline characteristic in Table 1, or note its omission in the Limitations.
Weight was the only biological-variable gap noted by Reviewer 1 and would complete the biological-variables reporting.

Full text (61,221 chars)Analyzed: Aug 10, 2026

RigorReviewer 1

RigorReviewer 2

RigorPre-Submission Reviewer

CopyeditAgent Scribe

CitationsCitation Integrity

StatisticsStatistics Consistency

ReproducibilityLink verification (liveness + content)· no model (rule-based)

PreregistrationDeterministic check· no model (rule-based)

The star rating is the report’s one-glance summary. Every paper starts at 5★ and loses stars for the concrete problems the review finds — so a rating is never a vague average, it’s a running total you can read line by line under “How this rating was calculated.”

How stars are deducted

Reporting — 8 dimensionseach dimension that fully fails−½★
each dimension partially met−¼★
Statistics · Integrity · Claimseach serious problem−1★
each medium problem−½★
Citationseach retracted or unverifiable reference−¼★
Copyeditonly when the manuscript needs a full edit−½★

The rating never drops below 1★, and a demonstrable critical failure (an impossible statistic, a proven ethics violation) caps it at 1★ on its own — so the stars can never look healthy when the verdict is CRITICAL.

The rating draws on a panel of agents. Three independent Kaimen Rigor reviewers grade the eight dimensions below across several independent passes (the shown verdict is their majority vote — steadier than any single run), isolate the paper’s major claims and check its own evidence backs them, and flag integrity concerns. Alongside them, a citation agent resolves every reference against Crossref, OpenAlex, and Retraction Watch; a statistics agent recomputes reported tests; and rule-based checks verify that declared data/code links actually resolve. Full text is required — an abstract-only submission is not analyzed.

The eight reporting dimensions

Scientific PremisePrior work, rationale, and how it addresses gaps.

Study Design & RigorRandomization, blinding, power, controls, replication.

Biological VariablesSex, age, species/strain, housing, demographics.

Ethical ApprovalsIRB/IACUC approval, informed consent, regulatory compliance.

Key ResourcesAntibodies, cell lines, organisms, software — identified with persistent IDs.

Statistical ReportingNamed tests, exact p-values, effect sizes, plausible summary stats.

Data & Code AvailabilityAvailability statements, repositories, accession numbers, shared code.

Reporting TransparencyMethods, registration, guidelines, outcomes, limitations, funding/COI.

Graded against NIH, MDAR, ARRIVE 2.0, CONSORT, EQUATOR, and RRID guidelines. A dimension that doesn’t apply to the study type is skipped, never penalized.

This Kaimen Rigor review is model-assisted and is not a substitute for formal expert review. It complements human evaluation by surfacing potential methodological concerns — verify each finding against the source.

Benralizumab versus placebo for hypereosinophilic syndrome: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

DOI

10.1038/s41591-026-04315-8

Record issued

2026-08-10

Engine

7.29.0

Exported

2026-09-21