Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Inhibition of endoplasmic reticulum stress alleviates cigarette smoke-induced airway inflammation and emphysema · 10.18632/oncotarget.20768

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Inhibition of endoplasmic reticulum stress alleviates cigarette smoke-induced airway inflammation and emphysema · 10.18632/oncotarget.20768
Item: Inhibition of endoplasmic reticulum stress alleviates cigarette smoke-induced airway inflammation and emphysema · 10.18632/oncotarget.20768
Rating: 54
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

Read full text

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · July 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

WARN

Warnings to address · Interventional Study

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: lowEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.

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.

The paper's scientific premise is well-established, but the study suffers from major methodological and reporting deficiencies that severely undermine confidence in the findings. Critical elements such as randomization, blinding, power analysis, and ethical approval are missing, and the statistical analysis is flawed. The data are not accessible, and key resources are inadequately identified.

Evaluation based on full-text manuscript review by three independent AI reviewers, plus a copyedit pass and verification components (citation, statistics, reproducibility, preregistration, integrity, claim audit). The statistics verification component could not mathematically verify any results because the paper reports only threshold p-values without test statistics or confidence intervals. The citation check found no retracted or unlocatable references. The integrity check identified an internal contradiction in the publication date (2026 vs. 2017).

12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions1 pass · 3 warn · 4 fail

12 major claims2 overstated10 supported

The introduction cites multiple studies linking ER stress to COPD (refs 12-16) and explicitly states that prior work focused on detection rather than the mechanistic role (line: 'However, these studies focus on the detection of ER stress and not on the role of ER stress in the pathogenesis of COPD'). The rationale linking ER stress to inflammation/emphysema through NF-κB and apoptosis is well laid out. Limitations of previous research are acknowledged and addressed by the study's design to delineate mechanisms.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The study clearly establishes its scientific foundation by citing relevant prior work on ER stress in COPD, identifying gaps, and providing a logical rationale for the hypothesis.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“However, these studies focus on the detection of ER stress and not on the role of ER stress in the pathogenesis of COPD, which has been largely unexplored.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Increased ER stress is associated with increased inflammation and apoptotic cell death through the activation of nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) and C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP), respectively.”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

“Here, we sought to delineate the molecular mechanisms by which ER stress promotes CS-induced inflammation and emphysema by evaluating the effects of the ER stress inhibitor, 4-phenylbutyric acid (4-PBA), in CS-treated Beas-2B cells and COPD mouse models.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper adequately establishes prior research and logical rationale for studying ER stress in COPD, and acknowledges limitations of prior work.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“However, these studies focus on the detection of ER stress and not on the role of ER stress in the pathogenesis of COPD, which has been largely unexplored.”

direct quote[Abstract]

“Here, we aimed to determine the role of ER stress in the pathogenesis of CS-induced airway inflammation and emphysema.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 5]

“Of note, ER stress is just one of cellular and molecular mechanisms for COPD pathogenesis, which explains why 4-PBA failed to completely rescue CS-induced airway inflammation and emphysema ER stress.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The premise is well-established: prior work on ER stress in COPD and CS-induced lung disease is cited, and the rationale linking ER stress to inflammation/emphysema is logically developed.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Recent studies suggest that ER stress plays an important role in the development of COPD [–]. However, these studies focus on the detection of ER stress and not on the role of ER stress in the pathogenesis of COPD, which has been largely unexplored.”

direct quote[Introduction, last sentence]

For the in vivo component, no randomization method or unit is described; mice were simply 'administered with PBS or 4-PBA and then exposed to room air or CS for 3 months' with no random allocation. Blinding of investigators or assessors is not mentioned. An a priori power analysis is absent. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for mice are not pre-specified. Outlier handling is not discussed. While appropriate controls (vehicle, air exposure) are present, the lack of randomization, blinding, and power analysis is a significant weakness. The cell experiments use '3 independent experiments' as replicates, but the distinction between biological and technical replicates is not clearly stated. No independent replication cohort is reported.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsNOT REPORTED

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitNOT REPORTED

inclusion exclusionNOT REPORTED

randomization methodNOT REPORTED

replicate distinctionINADEQUATE

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 95% conf

The study lacks critical methodological rigor elements: no randomization, blinding, power analysis, or pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria for animal experiments; outlier handling is absent; and independent replication is not reported.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, Mice section]

No randomization method described for animal allocation.

absence[Materials and Methods]

Blinding is not mentioned for any part of the study.

direct quote[Results, Figure 4 legend]

“Mice were administered with PBS or 4-PBA and then exposed to room air or CS for 3 months.”

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

Critical design elements such as randomization, blinding, power analysis, replicate distinction, inclusion/exclusion criteria, outlier handling, and independent replication are not reported, though controls are adequate.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, Mice]

No randomization method described for mouse groups.

absence[Materials and Methods]

No blinding described.

direct quote[Results, Figure 4 legend]

“Mice were administered with PBS or 4-PBA and then exposed to room air or CS for 3 months.”

WARNReviewer 3· 88% conf

Key design elements such as randomization, blinding, and a priori power analysis are not reported; the study also lacks pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria and independent replication. However, the use of controls and some biological/technical replicate distinction is adequate.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Mice section]

“Mice were exposed to total body CS generated from a smoking chambers for 3 or 6 month, as described []. The mice were exposed to 100 cigarettes per day, 2h per day, 5 days per week.”

direct quote[Figure legends, Results]

“Western blot analyses represent of 3 independent experiments (A and B).”

direct quote[Figure 4 legend]

“Mice were administered with PBS or 4-PBA and then exposed to room air or CS for 3 months.”

The paper states that C57BL/6 mice were purchased from the Animal Center of Slaccas, but it does not report the sex of mice, age at start of experiment, weight, or health status. Housing conditions (e.g., light cycle, temperature, enrichment) are not described. For human cell line Beas-2B, no donor sex or age is relevant, but the cell line is from ATCC, which is acceptable. The lack of mouse biological variables is a significant gap.

Sub-criteria

demographicsN/A

sex reportedNOT REPORTED

sex justifiedNOT REPORTED

age weight healthNOT REPORTED

housing conditionsNOT REPORTED

species strain sourceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper fails to report essential biological variables for the animal model: sex, age/weight at start, and housing conditions are omitted; only species/strain/source is reported.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, Mice section]

Sex of mice is not reported.

absence[Materials and Methods, Mice section]

Age or weight of mice at start of exposure is not provided.

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Mice section]

“C57BL/6 mice were purchased from the Animal Center of Slaccas (Shanghai, China).”

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

Most biological variables are not reported: sex, age, weight, health status, and housing conditions of mice are missing; only species/strain and source are provided.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Mice]

“C57BL/6 mice were purchased from the Animal Center of Slaccas (Shanghai, China).”

absence[Materials and Methods, Mice]

Sex, age, weight, and housing conditions not mentioned.

WARNReviewer 3· 92% conf

Sex of mice is not reported, and no justification for single-sex use is given; age/weight/health status, species/strain/source, and housing conditions are partially reported but lack key details like sex, housing enrichment, and health monitoring. However, for a cell-line study, these are less critical; for the mouse model, the reporting is incomplete.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Mice]

“C57BL/6 mice were purchased from the Animal Center of Slaccas (Shanghai, China).”

absence[Methods, Mice section (full text)]

Sex of mice is not mentioned.

absence[Methods, Mice section (full text)]

Housing conditions (light cycle, temperature, enrichment) are not described.

The study involves live mice (C57BL/6) exposed to cigarette smoke for up to 6 months, which is an animal experiment requiring ethical oversight. No IACUC approval statement, protocol number, or institutional animal welfare committee is named. Compliance with any animal care guidelines (e.g., Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals) is not stated. This omission is notable and constitutes a reporting gap, but per the scoring rule it is scored as 'warn' (reporting gap, not proven misconduct).

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementNOT REPORTED

informed consentN/A

irb ethics statementN/A

regulatory complianceNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper does not report any ethical approval for animal experiments, which is a significant oversight; no IACUC statement or regulatory compliance is mentioned.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, Mice section]

No IACUC approval statement is present.

absence[Materials and Methods]

No regulatory compliance statement (e.g., Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals) is provided.

WARNReviewer 2· 95% conf

No animal ethics approval statement (IACUC) or regulatory compliance statement is provided for the mouse experiments, which is a reporting gap.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, Mice]

No IACUC approval statement found.

absence[Materials and Methods]

No regulatory compliance statement found.

FAILReviewer 3· 85% conf

No ethics or animal welfare committee approval statement is provided for the mouse experiments, and no regulatory compliance statement is included. This is a critical omission for a study using live animals.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No animal welfare approval statement is provided.

absence[Entire manuscript]

No regulatory compliance statement for animal research.

Antibodies are listed with vendors but no catalog numbers or RRIDs. The Beas-2B cell line source is given (ATCC) but no authentication (str profiling) or mycoplasma testing is reported. Key reagents (4-PBA, NAC, siRNAs) lack catalog numbers. Primer sequences for qPCR are not provided. In contrast, the mouse strain/source and software (GraphPad Prism 4.0, ImageJ) are adequately identified. Of 6 applicable criteria, 2 are adequate (organisms_identified, software_tools_identified), resulting in a warn.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingNOT REPORTED

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedINADEQUATE

cell line authenticationNOT REPORTED

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 90% conf

Most key resources are inadequately identified: antibodies lack catalog numbers, cell lines are not authenticated, mycoplasma testing is absent, and reagents lack catalog numbers; only software is adequately identified with version.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Reagents section]

“Antibodies to IRE1α, GRP78, CHOP, p-P65, IκB, Cleaved caspase-3 and actin were purchased from Cell Signaling Technology (Danvers, MA).”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Cell culture section]

“Human lung Beas-2B cells were purchased from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and grown in RPMI 1640 containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS)...”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Statistical analysis section]

“GraphPad Prism software (version 4.0; GraphPad software, San Diego) was used to analyze statistical tests.”

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

Key resources are inadequately identified: antibodies lack catalog numbers/RRIDs, cell line authentication and mycoplasma testing are absent, and reagents lack catalog numbers; mouse strain and software are adequately reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Reagents]

“Antibodies to IRE1α, GRP78, CHOP, p-P65, IκB, Cleaved caspase-3 and actin were purchased from Cell Signaling Technology (Danvers, MA).”

absence[Materials and Methods, Cell culture]

Cell line authentication and mycoplasma testing not reported.

absence[Materials and Methods, RNA isolation and quantitative real-time PCR]

Primer sequences not provided for qPCR.

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

Key resources such as antibodies, cell line, and reagents are partially identified but lack critical details (e.g., catalog numbers for most antibodies, STR authentication, mycoplasma testing, and full primer sequences). Software is identified but without version numbers for all tools.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Reagents]

“Antibodies to IRE1α, GRP78, CHOP, p-P65, IκB, Cleaved caspase-3 and actin were purchased from Cell Signaling Technology (Danvers, MA).”

absence[Methods, Cell culture section (full text)]

No mycoplasma testing is reported.

direct quote[Methods, Mice]

“4-phenylbutyric acid (4-PBA) (20 mg/kg per day, Sigma)”

The paper uses Student's t-test for all comparisons, including those involving multiple groups (e.g., comparing multiple treatment groups), which is inappropriate and inflates Type I error. Test assumptions (normality, equal variance) are not verified. Only threshold p-values (e.g., *P<0.05) are reported, not exact p-values. No effect sizes or confidence intervals accompany the reported means. Data are presented as bar graphs with SEM, not showing individual data points, which is a concern for small samples (n=3-5). Statistical software (GraphPad Prism) is adequately identified.

Sub-criteria

tests namedINADEQUATE

exact p valuesNOT REPORTED

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical reporting is inadequate: only Student's t-test is used for multiple comparisons without correction, no effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported, exact p-values are not given, and individual data points are not shown.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Statistical analysis section]

“Statistical analyses were performed by the 2-tailed Student t test.”

direct quote[Figure legends (e.g., Figure 1)]

“*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 (Student's t-test).”

direct quote[Figure legends (e.g., Figure 1)]

“Bars represent means± SEM.”

FAILReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical analysis reporting is insufficient: while tests and software are named, assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are replaced by threshold symbols, effect sizes/confidence intervals are absent, and data are presented as bar graphs without individual points.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Statistical analysis]

“Statistical analyses were performed by the 2-tailed Student t test.”

direct quote[Figure legends, e.g., Figure 1]

“*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 (Student's t-test).”

direct quote[Figure legends]

“Bars represent means± SEM.”

WARNReviewer 3· 82% conf

Statistical tests are named (Student's t-test) and software is identified, but assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are reported only as thresholds, effect sizes and CIs are absent, and the sample size (n=3 independent experiments, n=5 mice) is reported. The data presentation is adequate for the study type, but the reliance on bar charts without individual points and unverified assumptions lower the score.

Evidence

direct quote[Figure 1 legend]

“*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 (Student's t-test).”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“GraphPad Prism software (version 4.0; GraphPad software, San Diego) was used to analyze statistical tests.”

direct quote[Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 — all present data as bar charts]

“Bars represent means± SEM.”

The paper does not contain any data availability statement, nor does it mention deposition of raw data in any public repository. No code sharing is reported (the analysis used standard commercial software). For an animal study with western blots, cell counts, and histological data, the omission of any data access route is a significant gap in reproducibility.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 95% conf

No data availability statement is provided, and no data or code repositories are mentioned, making it impossible to access or verify the underlying data.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data availability statement found in the paper.

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

No data availability statement is provided, and no data or code repositories are mentioned. The paper lacks compliance with open science expectations.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement found.

absence[Entire paper]

No repository deposit mentioned.

FAILReviewer 3· 90% conf

No data availability statement is provided; raw data are not deposited in any repository; no code was shared. This is a complete absence of open science practices for a study that generated primary experimental data.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data availability statement.

absence[Entire manuscript]

No repository deposit or accession numbers.

absence[Entire manuscript]

No code sharing.

Methods_completeness: detailed (cell culture, CSE, reagents, Western blot, qPCR, ELISA, mouse model, histology) — reported_and_adequate. Trial_registration: not_applicable (preclinical). Reporting_guideline: not mentioned (ARRIVE, etc.) — not_reported. All_outcomes_reported: the study reports inflammatory markers, ER stress markers, histology, apoptosis — no obvious missing outcome — reported_and_adequate. Limitations_discussed: the discussion notes that 4-PBA did not completely rescue CS-induced pathology and that the precise mechanism of ER stress-NF-κB activation is unclear — but does not discuss lack of blinding, randomization, or sample size justification — reported_but_inadequate. Conclusions_proportional: the claim that ER stress is 'crucial' is somewhat overstated given the correlative nature of the evidence and the single inhibitor approach — but overall the conclusion language is cautious; reported_but_inadequate. Funding_coi: a conflict-of-interest statement is provided, but no funding source/grant number is mentioned — reported_but_inadequate. With 2 of 5 applicable adequate (methods_completeness, all_outcomes_reported), the score is 'warn'.

Sub-criteria

funding coiINADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedINADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

The paper reports most outcomes and discusses limitations proportionally, but it lacks a reporting guideline checklist (e.g., ARRIVE), does not mention pre-registration, and omits funding information.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods]

No reporting guideline (ARRIVE) mentioned.

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 6]

“Of note, ER stress is just one of cellular and molecular mechanisms for COPD pathogenesis, which explains why 4-PBA failed to completely rescue CS-induced airway inflammation and emphysema.”

absence[CONFLICTS OF INTEREST section]

Funding sources not reported.

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The paper is generally transparent: methods are sufficiently detailed, all outcomes are reported, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are proportional. However, no reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE) is referenced and funding information is missing.

Evidence

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 5]

direct quote[Footnotes]

“There are no potential conflicts of interest exist with any companies/organizations whose products or services may be discussed in this article.”

absence[Entire paper]

Funding information not reported.

WARNReviewer 3· 87% conf

Methods are mostly detailed enough for replication; trial registration is not applicable; no reporting guideline is mentioned; all outcomes appear reported; limitations are discussed but some are superficial; conclusions are mostly proportional but slightly overstate 'crucial' role based on correlative data; funding and COI are provided.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, entire section]

No reporting guideline is referenced.

direct quote[End of manuscript, Conflicts of Interest]

“There are no potential conflicts of interest exist with any companies/organizations whose products or services may be discussed in this article.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 5]

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

Checked 43 references: 43 verified.

Reproducibility

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This published paper has substantial robustness concerns. An informed reader should weigh the absence of randomization, blinding, and power analysis when interpreting causal claims, and note that the statistical approach (multiple t-tests without correction) is inappropriate. The missing data availability statement and ethical approval documentation are further limitations. The implausible publication date (2026) in the header suggests a serious error that may warrant an erratum. An independent re-analysis with proper statistical methods and access to the raw data would be needed to verify the conclusions.

1.
HIGHother
Correct the implausible publication date '2026' in the paper header; it likely should be 2017 based on the received and accepted dates.
The header lists a publication date of 2026 for a paper received in 2017, which is a clear internal contradiction that undermines the paper's credibility and may be a metadata error requiring an erratum.
2.
HIGHrigor
Consider issuing a correction or comment to address the absence of randomization, blinding, and power analysis for the animal experiments, as these omissions severely limit causal inference.
Without these elements, the study design does not meet current standards for preclinical rigor, and readers cannot assess the risk of bias in the reported results.
3.
HIGHstatistics
Acknowledge that the use of multiple Student's t-tests for group comparisons without correction for multiple comparisons is a statistical error that inflates the Type I error rate; an independent re-analysis with appropriate methods (e.g., ANOVA with post-hoc tests) is warranted.
The paper compares four groups (air/PBS, air/4-PBA, CS/PBS, CS/4-PBA) yet uses only pairwise t-tests, which is a demonstrable error that could produce false positive findings.
4.
HIGHethics
Issue an erratum to include the IACUC approval statement and protocol number for the animal experiments, or confirm that such approval was obtained but omitted from the manuscript.
The absence of any ethics statement for live animal work is a significant reporting gap that may raise concerns about regulatory compliance.
5.
HIGHreporting
Temper the claim that ER stress is 'crucial' for CS-induced inflammation and emphysema, as the study provides only correlative evidence from a single pharmacological inhibitor; consider revising to 'important' or 'contributory'.
The claim audit flagged this as overstated; the evidence does not establish causal necessity, and over-claiming can mislead readers about the strength of the findings.
6.
HIGHdata code
Add a data availability statement to the manuscript, even if only stating that raw data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, to improve transparency.
The complete absence of any data access statement prevents verification and reuse of the data, which is a major impediment to reproducibility.
7.
HIGHreporting
Report the sex, age, and weight of the mice used, and describe housing conditions (light cycle, temperature, enrichment) in the Methods section.
These biological variables are essential for interpreting and replicating the animal experiments, and their omission is a significant reporting gap.
8.
HIGHreporting
Provide catalog numbers or RRIDs for all antibodies and key reagents (e.g., 4-PBA, NAC, siRNAs, ELISA kits) to enable reproducibility.
Without precise identifiers, other researchers cannot obtain the same reagents, hindering replication attempts.
9.
HIGHreporting
Include a statement that the ARRIVE guidelines for animal research were followed, and consider adding a completed checklist as supplementary material.
Adherence to reporting guidelines is standard for preclinical studies and would help address multiple reporting omissions.
10.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the typo 'bronchoalveloar' to 'bronchoalveolar' throughout the manuscript (Abstract, Methods, Results, Discussion).
This spelling error appears multiple times and detracts from the manuscript's professionalism.
11.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the grammar error in the figure legends: change 'represent of' to 'are representative of'.
The phrase 'represent of' is grammatically incorrect and should be revised for clarity.
12.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the subject-verb agreement error in the TUNEL methods: change 'Staining area were' to 'Staining area was'.
Subject-verb agreement errors reduce the readability of the manuscript.
13.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the brand name 'Odysey' to 'Odyssey' in the Western blotting methods.
This is a misspelling of the imaging system name that could confuse readers.
14.
LOWreporting
Report funding sources if any were received; if not, state that no funding was received.
The absence of any funding disclosure is a common journal requirement and its omission is a minor reporting gap.

Full text (35,096 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →