Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-671): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-671): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
Item: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-671): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Spicer JD, Garassino MC, Wakelee H, Liberman M, Kato T, Tsuboi M, Lee SH, Chen KN, Dooms C, Majem M, Eigendorff E, Martinengo GL, Bylicki O, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Chaft JE, Novello S, Yang J, Arunachalam A, Keller SM, Samkari A, Gao S, KEYNOTE-671 Investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 0 high issues for “Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-671): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 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

4 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★

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

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 2 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed. These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced2 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

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 rigorously designed and reported phase 3 randomized controlled trial. The methodology is sound, with clear randomization, blinding, power analysis, and comprehensive reporting of demographics, ethics, resources, statistics, and data availability. Minor reporting gaps include lack of explicit reporting guideline adherence and a few copyedit issues.

Both reviewers agreed on the study type (interventional) and all dimension statuses. The paper is a full-text clinical trial report. The statistics verification component checked only 3 tests (all consistent); other statistics were not machine-verified. The citation check found no retracted or unresolved references.

6 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 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites historical trials establishing the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, recent phase 3 trials of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and identifies the gap that no regimen has shown an overall survival benefit in the intention-to-treat population. The rationale for the perioperative approach is clearly linked to the study objectives. Limitations of prior research are implicitly addressed by the trial design, though not explicitly framed as addressing prior limitations.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“No neoadjuvant or perioperative treatment regimen has shown a significant overall survival benefit in the last 30 years.”