Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Slug enhances invasion ability of pancreatic cancer cells through upregulation of matrix metalloproteinase-9 and actin cytoskeleton remodeling

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Slug enhances invasion ability of pancreatic cancer cells through upregulation of matrix metalloproteinase-9 and actin cytoskeleton remodeling
Item: Slug enhances invasion ability of pancreatic cancer cells through upregulation of matrix metalloproteinase-9 and actin cytoskeleton remodeling
Rating: 39
Author: Αlpha¹

Zhang K, Chen D, Jiao X, Zhang S, Liu X, Cao J, Wu L, Wang D.

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)Journal

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 1★ (Critical), 4 critical, 5 high issues for “Slug enhances invasion ability of pancreatic cancer cells through upregulation of matrix metalloproteinase-9 and actin cytoskeleton remodeling”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 5, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

1 / 5

Critical — a demonstrable failure

Mixed Methods

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

StatisticsImpossible or misreported statistic ×3−3★
StatisticsStatistic did not reproduce ×2−1★
IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ReportingStudy design not met−0.5★
ReportingBiological variables not met−0.5★
ReportingKey resources not met−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability not met−0.5★
ReportingStatistical analysis partially met−0.25★

A demonstrable critical failure caps the rating at the minimum, regardless of the deductions above.

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: lowEngine: 7.15.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced8 types

Significance claim flips when recomputed
Biological variables not reported
Data and code not shared
Key resources not identified
Reported statistics do not recompute
Statistical reporting gaps (tests, assumptions, effect sizes)
Study design lacks key rigor safeguards
Internal contradictions in the reported numbers

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.

Critical findings

• Recomputed 8 tests: 3 consistent, 5 inconsistent (3 change significance at p<.05); 8 via agent-written checks.

The paper investigates Slug's role in pancreatic cancer using a mixed design (clinical cohort, in vitro, in vivo). Major strengths: clear scientific premise, adequate ethical approvals, and generally transparent reporting. However, the study has critical rigor gaps: no blinding, power analysis, or randomization; missing patient demographics; a demonstrable internal inconsistency in Table 2; and no data availability statement. Several statistical recomputations did not match reported values, and the animal ethics statement lacks a protocol number.

Three independent reviewer runs were synthesized; the main divergence was on biological variables (R3 gave pass) and key resources (R1 gave pass). The synthesis followed the checklist rules, which led to a stricter assessment for those dimensions. The verification component provided concrete evidence of statistical errors. No dimensions were not applicable.

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

Recomputed 8 tests: 3 consistent, 5 inconsistent (3 change significance at p<.05); 8 via agent-written checks.

1 integrity concern flagged (1 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions3 pass · 1 warn · 4 fail

The introduction cites multiple previous studies on Slug and E-cadherin in various cancers, discusses conflicting evidence, and explicitly states the study's objectives. It also addresses limitations of prior work, such as the lack of a relationship between Slug and E-cadherin in pancreatic cancer and the need to explore other mechanisms (e.g., MMP-9).

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper thoroughly establishes the scientific premise by citing prior work on Slug, EMT, E-cadherin, and MMP-9, and clearly articulates the rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“A recent study demonstrated that no relationship exists between Slug and E-cadherin in pancreatic cancer.”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

“In this study, we aimed to examine the expression of Slug, E-cadherin, and MMP-9 in pancreatic cancer and to obtain further insight into the question of whether Slug promotes E-cadherin or MMP-9-induced EMT in pancreatic cancer.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“However, the relationship between Slug transcription, Snail transcription, and E-cadherin is largely dependent on tissue and cell type.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study clearly establishes its scientific foundation by citing prior work on Slug, E-cadherin, and MMP-9, and articulating a logical rationale for the hypothesis.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“A recent study demonstrated that no relationship exists between Slug and E-cadherin in pancreatic cancer.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“the relationship between Slug transcription, Snail transcription, and E-cadherin is largely dependent on tissue and cell type.”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The study provides a clear rationale for investigating Slug, E-cadherin, and MMP-9 in pancreatic cancer, building upon existing literature and identifying gaps in understanding their specific relationships in this context.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“Slug, a member of the Snail family of transcription factors, has a crucial role in the regulation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) by suppressing several epithelial markers and adhesion molecules, including E-cadherin.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“A recent study demonstrated that no relationship exists between Slug and E-cadherin in pancreatic cancer.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

For the animal experiments, no randomization method or allocation concealment is described; blinding of investigators or assessors is not mentioned. No a priori sample size calculation is provided. The distinction between biological and technical replicates is unclear (experiments were done in duplicate and repeated four times). Inclusion/exclusion criteria are not pre-specified for the human tissue or animal studies. Outlier handling is not addressed. Controls (mock-transfected and vector-transfected) are adequate. Independent replication of key findings is not reported or planned.

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· 75% conf

The study design lacks rigor in several key areas: no blinding, no a priori power analysis, no specific inclusion/exclusion criteria for cell or animal experiments, no distinction between biological and technical replicates, and no outlier handling plan.

Evidence

absence[Methods, Animal Studies and Cell Invasion Assays]

No blinding is reported for any experiment.

absence[Methods, Statistical Assessment]

No a priori power analysis or sample size calculation is reported.

direct quote[Methods, Cell Invasion Assays]

“Individual experiments were done in duplicate and repeated four times.”

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study design lacks essential methodological rigor: no randomization, blinding, power analysis, or pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria are reported for the in vivo/in vitro components.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, Animal Studies]

No randomization method is described for the animal study.

absence[Materials and Methods]

Blinding is not mentioned.

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Cell Invasion Assays]

“Individual experiments were done in duplicate and repeated four times.”

WARNReviewer 3· 70% conf

The study design includes appropriate controls for in vitro and in vivo experiments but lacks details on randomization and blinding for animal studies, and does not report a power analysis for any part of the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

“Slug transfection significantly increased invasion and metastasis in PANC-1 cells and orthotopic tumor of mouse in vivo , and significantly upregulated and activated MMP-9; however, there was no effect on E-cadherin expression.”

direct quote[Animal Studies, paragraph 2]

“We inoculated the nude mice with cell samples as described previously. Briefly, PANC-1 cells (5 × 10 5 cells plus 50 μ l PBS per mouse) were orthotopically injected into the pancreas under the envelope near spleen of nude mice ( n =12 for each variant).”

absence[Methods]

No power analysis is reported.

absence[Methods]

No randomization method for animal allocation is reported.

For the human tissue component, age, sex, health status, and other demographics are not reported. The animal study reports sex (female) and age (6-8 weeks), but weight is not given and health status is only implied by the housing conditions. Species and strain (C57BL/6 mice) are reported adequately, and the cell line source (PANC-1 from ATCC) is provided. Housing conditions are described only as 'sterile environment' with reference to regulations, lacking details on light cycle, temperature, or enrichment. No justification is provided for using only female mice.

Sub-criteria

demographicsNOT REPORTED

sex reportedNOT REPORTED

sex justifiedNOT REPORTED

age weight healthNOT REPORTED

housing conditionsINADEQUATE

species strain sourceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Biological variables are partially reported: animal details (species, strain, age, sex) are provided, but patient demographics (sex, age) are absent, and animal weight and health status are not reported. Sex is reported for mice but not justified for the single-sex study.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Patients and Tissue Samples]

“Between 1999 and 2009, 60 consecutive pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ordinary ductal carcinoma) specimens for which tissue was available for immunohistochemical staining were identified from the files of General Surgery, the affiliated hospital of medical college, Qingdao University.”

direct quote[Methods, Animal Studies]

“Female C57BL/6 mice at 6–8 weeks old were obtained from Qingdao Medical college, Qingdao University for tumor implantation.”

paraphrase[Methods, Animal Studies]

“All animals were maintained in a sterile environment and cared for within the laboratory animal regulations of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China.”

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

Key biological variables are inadequately reported: human participant demographics (age, sex, health status) are missing, and animal housing conditions lack detail.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, Patients and Tissue Samples]

Human participant demographics (age, sex) are not reported.

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Animal Studies]

“Female C57BL/6 mice at 6–8 weeks old were obtained from Qingdao Medical college, Qingdao University for tumor implantation.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Animal Studies]

“All animals were maintained in a sterile environment and cared for within the laboratory animal regulations of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The study adequately reports the sex, age, and source of the animals, and the source of the cell line. Human demographics are partially reported by providing the number of cases.

Evidence

direct quote[Animal Studies, paragraph 1]

“Female C57BL/6 mice at 6–8 weeks old were obtained from Qingdao Medical college, Qingdao University for tumor implantation.”

direct quote[Animal Studies, paragraph 1]

“All animals were maintained in a sterile environment and cared for within the laboratory animal regulations of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China ( http://www.most.gov.cn/kytj/kytjzcwj/200411 ).”

direct quote[Cell Culture and Stable Transfection of PANC-1 Cells, paragraph 1]

“The PANC-1 cell line used in present study was obtained from ATCC, and maintained in a 5% CO 2 atmosphere at 37°C in RPMI 1640/Ham's F-12 mixed (1:1) medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum.”

direct quote[Patients and Tissue Samples, paragraph 1]

The paper states: 'All research involving human participants was approved in written form by the patients studied and the ethics committee at the affiliated hospital of medical college, Qingdao University.' This provides a named ethics body and indicates consent. For animals, 'Full details of the study approval by the ethics committee at the affiliated hospital of medical college, Qingdao University' and adherence to 'laboratory animal regulations of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China' are noted. These statements satisfy the requirements for both human and animal research.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementADEQUATE

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Ethical approval is reported for both human and animal components: the ethics committee at the affiliated hospital is named, and written informed consent from patients and compliance with Chinese animal regulations are stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Patients and Tissue Samples]

“All research involving human participants was approved in written form by the patients studied and the ethics committee at the affiliated hospital of medical college, Qingdao University.”

direct quote[Methods, Animal Studies]

“Full details of the study approval by the ethics committee at the affiliated hospital of medical college, Qingdao University.”

paraphrase[Methods, Animal Studies]

“All animals were maintained in a sterile environment and cared for within the laboratory animal regulations of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China.”

WARNReviewer 2· 95% conf

Human ethics approval and informed consent are reported adequately, but the animal ethics statement lacks a protocol number and the committee is not specifically an animal welfare body.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Patients and Tissue Samples]

“All research involving human participants was approved in written form by the patients studied and the ethics committee at the affiliated hospital of medical college, Qingdao University.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Animal Studies]

“Full details of the study approval by the ethics committee at the affiliated hospital of medical college, Qingdao University.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Animal Studies]

“All animals were maintained in a sterile environment and cared for within the laboratory animal regulations of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The study reports explicit ethical approval for both human tissue samples and animal studies, including informed consent for human participants and compliance with relevant regulations.

Evidence

direct quote[Patients and Tissue Samples, paragraph 2]

“All research involving human participants was approved in written form by the patients studied and the ethics committee at the affiliated hospital of medical college, Qingdao University.”

direct quote[Animal Studies, paragraph 1]

“Full details of the study approval by the ethics committee at the affiliated hospital of medical college, Qingdao University.”

direct quote[Animal Studies, paragraph 1]

Antibodies are listed with vendor and dilution but no catalog numbers or RRIDs. The PANC-1 cell line source is stated but no authentication (e.g., STR profiling) is reported. Mycoplasma testing is not mentioned. Mouse strain and source are given but not a specific vendor catalog number. Reagents such as Lipofectamine and plasmids are partially described; primer sequences are provided. Statistical software (SPSS 13.0) is named, but other software (e.g., Quantity One) lacks version information. No custom code was shared.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingNOT REPORTED

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedINADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedINADEQUATE

cell line authenticationNOT REPORTED

software tools identifiedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Key resources are mostly well-identified: antibodies, organisms, reagents, and software are reported with adequate detail. However, cell line authentication and mycoplasma testing are not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Immunohistochemistry]

“Tissue slides were immunohistochemically stained for Slug (dilution at 1:100; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) or E-cadherin (dilution at 1:100; Santa Cruz Biotechnology), or MMP-9 (dilution at 1:100, Santa Cruz Biotechnology).”

paraphrase[Methods, Cell Culture and Stable Transfection of PANC-1 Cells]

“The PANC-1 cell line used in present study was obtained from ATCC, and maintained in a 5% CO2 atmosphere at 37°C in RPMI 1640/Ham's F-12 mixed (1:1) medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical Assessment]

“All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS13.0 software.”

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

Key resources are inadequately identified: antibodies lack catalog numbers/RRIDs, cell line authentication and mycoplasma testing are not reported, and software versions are incomplete.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Immunohistochemistry]

“Slug (dilution at 1:100; Santa Cruz Biotechnology) or E-cadherin (dilution at 1:100; Santa Cruz Biotechnology), or MMP-9 (dilution at 1:100, Santa Cruz Biotechnology).”

absence[Materials and Methods, Cell Culture and Stable Transfection]

Cell line authentication not reported.

absence[Materials and Methods]

Mycoplasma testing not mentioned.

WARNReviewer 3· 70% conf

Key reagents like antibodies and primers are identified by vendor and sequence, respectively, but cell line authentication and mycoplasma testing are not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Immunohistochemistry, paragraph 1]

direct quote[RNA Extraction and RT-PCR Analysis, paragraph 2]

“Primer sequences were as follows: Slug: sense: 5′-CCTCCAAAAAGCCAAACTACTA-3′, antisense: 3′-GTGTGCTACACAGCAGCC-5′ E-cadherin: sense: 5′-TTCAGTTCCGAGGTCTACAC-3′ antisense: 3′-GTCTCTGTGGTGATGCCGGT-5′ MMP-9: sense: 5′-CCTTCTACGGCCACTACT-3′, antisense: 3′-GCACTGCAGGATGTCATA-5′ GAPDH: sense: 5′-TGATGGGTGTGAACCACGAG-3′, antisense: 3′-TTGAAGTCGCAGGAGACAACC-5′.”

direct quote[RNA Extraction and RT-PCR Analysis, paragraph 3]

“Fluorescent bands were visualized using a UV-CCD video system (EpiLightUVFA1100; AISIN COSMOS, Tokyo, Japan) and were analyzed using Quantity One image-analysis software (PDI, NY).”

absence[Methods]

Cell line authentication is not reported.

The paper names tests (Student's t-test, ANOVA, Dunnett's t-test, chi-square) and identifies SPSS 13.0. However, it does not discuss verification of assumptions (normality, equal variance). Many p-values are reported as '<0.05' or '<0.01' rather than exact values, though some exact p-values are given (e.g., P=0.039, P=0.0034). No effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported. Data are presented as bar graphs with mean±SD but not as individual points. Per-group n is stated for some experiments (e.g., n=6/group). The mathematical plausibility check shows no obvious errors.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesINADEQUATE

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityPASS

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Statistical tests are named and software is identified, but assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are often reported as thresholds, effect sizes with confidence intervals are absent, and individual data points are not shown.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical Assessment]

“Differences between various groups were assessed using ANOVA or Dunnett's t-test.”

paraphrase[Results, Slug promotes MMP-9 Expression In vitro in PANC-1 Cells]

“The ELISA assay of supernatant medium confirmed that overexpression of Slug in PANC-1 cells exhibited a higher level of MMP-9 protein compared with mock or untransfected PANC-1 (P=0.039).”

absence[Results, all sections]

No effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported.

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

Statistical analysis reporting has multiple deficiencies: no verification of test assumptions, effect sizes without confidence intervals, and a demonstrable internal inconsistency in Table 2 where marginal totals do not sum to stated group sizes.

Evidence

paraphrase[Results, Table 2]

“Table 2: For MMP-9: Positive (n=25) 18, 7; Negative (n=35) 17, 18. The column for Slug positive (n=41) sums to 18+17=35, not 41.”

absence[Materials and Methods, Statistical Assessment]

No verification of test assumptions is reported.

absence[Results, Statistical Assessment]

Effect sizes are not reported with confidence intervals.

WARNReviewer 3· 70% conf

Statistical tests and software are named, but assumptions are not verified, and exact p-values are not consistently reported, with some reported as ranges.

Evidence

direct quote[RNA Extraction and RT-PCR Analysis, paragraph 4]

“The significance of differences found between the control group and Slug cDNA-treated group was evaluated with Student's t -test.”

direct quote[Statistical Assessment, paragraph 1]

“All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS13.0 software.”

paraphrase[Table 1]

“P <0.05”

absence[Methods]

Assumptions for statistical tests are not reported as verified.

The paper does not include a data availability statement, nor does it mention any repository deposit for raw data, sequencing data, or custom code. There is no accession number or link to data. The only software mentioned is SPSS 13.0, which is commercial and not custom. No code sharing is reported.

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, code, or materials are deposited in a public repository.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data availability statement.

absence[Entire manuscript]

No repository deposit mentioned.

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

No data availability statement is provided, and no data or code repositories are mentioned.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data availability statement is present.

FAILReviewer 3· 80% conf

The paper lacks a data availability statement and does not provide access to raw data or custom code.

Evidence

absence[Paper as a whole]

No data availability statement is present.

absence[Paper as a whole]

No raw data are deposited in a public repository.

absence[Paper as a whole]

No custom code is shared in a public repository.

Methods are described in sufficient detail for replication, though some aspects (randomization, blinding) are missing. Trial registration and reporting guidelines are not applicable. All pre-specified outcomes (Slug, E-cadherin, MMP-9, F-actin, invasion, metastasis) are reported, and negative results are transparently stated. Limitations are discussed, including the small sample size and potential evaluation bias. Conclusions do not overclaim the findings. Funding and conflicts of interest are not reported.

Sub-criteria

funding coiNOT REPORTED

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessINADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

The methods are generally detailed, all outcomes are reported, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are proportional. However, a reporting guideline is not referenced, and the funding/conflict-of-interest statement is incomplete.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, all sections]

“Methods are described in multiple subsections covering immunohistochemistry, cell culture, transfection, RT-PCR, western blot, gelatin zymography, ELISA, flow cytometry, confocal microscopy, invasion assays, and animal studies.”

direct quote[Discussion, final paragraph]

“The difference may be because of the limited number of patients or the evaluation the immunohistochemistry results.”

direct quote[End of manuscript]

“The authors declare no”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Overall reporting is adequate: methods are detailed, all outcomes are reported including non-significant results, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are proportional.

Evidence

direct quote[Discussion]

“The difference may be because of the limited number of patients or the evaluation the immunohistochemistry results.”

paraphrase[Results, The Relationship Between Slug, MMP-9, and E-Cadherin Expression and Pathological Data]

“There was no significant relationship between the expression of Slug and the expression of E-cadherin (P>0.05).”

direct quote[Discussion]

“These findings indicate that Slug may regulate the metastatic nature of PANC-1 by stimulating cell motility (probably by modulation of the cytoskeletal structure that is well established).”

WARNReviewer 3· 70% conf

The methods are generally detailed, and limitations are discussed, but the study does not reference any reporting guidelines, and the funding statement is incomplete.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods]

“The methods section describes immunohistochemistry, cell culture, transfection, RT-PCR, western blotting, zymography, ELISA, flow cytometry, immunofluorescent staining, cell invasion assays, and animal studies with sufficient detail.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 3]

“The difference may be because of the limited number of patients or the evaluation the immunohistochemistry results.”

absence[Paper as a whole]

The authors declare no conflict of interest, but funding sources lack grant numbers.

absence[Paper as a whole]

No reporting guidelines are referenced.

28 copyedit issues flagged (3 major): mostly grammar, consistency, punctuation.

Checked 39 references by DOI: 29 verified — 10 no DOI (shown, not verified).

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

In this post-publication audit, the published work has several methodological weaknesses that undermine the reliability of its conclusions. An informed reader should weigh the absence of blinding, power analysis, and randomization, the internal inconsistency in Table 2, and the mismatch between several reported and recomputed p-values. An erratum or independent re-analysis is warranted to address the data integrity concerns, particularly the Table 2 inconsistency and the statistical discrepancies.

1.
CRITICALstatistics
Correct the internal inconsistency in Table 2: ensure that the column totals for Slug positive (n=41) and Slug negative (n=19) match the sum of the entries (currently 18+17=35 and 7+18=25). This error must be addressed in a published correction.
The discrepancy undermines the reliability of the reported association between Slug and MMP-9 and the corresponding p-values.
2.
CRITICALstatistics
Investigate and rectify the five recomputed statistical tests that do not match the reported p-values, including the chi-square test for Slug-MMP-9 association (reported P=0.0034, recomputed P=0.07). A published correction or re-analysis is warranted.
Inconsistent test results erode confidence in the paper's statistical conclusions.
3.
CRITICALdata code
Add a data availability statement to the published paper (via a correction) specifying where raw data (e.g., immunohistochemistry scores, invasion counts) can be accessed, ideally in a repository like Figshare or Zenodo.
Without a data availability statement, readers cannot verify the reported findings, which is a major reporting gap.
4.
CRITICALreporting
Complete the truncated funding/conflict-of-interest statement (ends with 'The authors declare no') by publishing a correction that includes the full declaration and any funding sources.
The incomplete statement is a major reporting oversight that prevents assessment of potential biases.
5.
HIGHreporting
Report human participant demographics (age, sex, health status) in a baseline table, either via a correction or as a note to readers.
Missing demographic data limits the ability to assess the generalizability and potential confounding of the clinical cohort.
6.
HIGHrigor
Provide a justification for using only female mice in the animal study, or acknowledge the limitation in a correction.
Sex-specific effects are well documented; the lack of justification or inclusion of both sexes weakens the study's applicability.
7.
HIGHrigor
Clarify the distinction between biological and technical replicates in all cell-based assays, particularly the invasion assay described as 'done in duplicate and repeated four times'.
Failure to distinguish replicates affects the interpretation of statistical significance and reproducibility.
8.
HIGHreporting
Report exact p-values (e.g., P=0.034 instead of P<0.05) for all statistical tests, and include effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals for key comparisons.
Threshold p-values and absence of effect sizes reduce the informativeness and reproducibility of the statistical reporting.
9.
HIGHreporting
Add a statement on adherence to a reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE for animal studies) in a correction, or note the absence as a limitation.
Reporting guidelines improve reproducibility and transparency; their absence is a notable gap.
10.
MEDIUMrigor
Describe the blinding procedures for cell counting, immunohistochemistry evaluation, and animal outcome assessments, or state that blinding was not performed and discuss the potential bias.
Blinding is a key safeguard against observer bias; its absence should be acknowledged.
11.
MEDIUMrigor
Provide an a priori power analysis or sample size justification for the animal experiments, or note the limitation.
Without a power analysis, the study may be underpowered to detect meaningful effects.
12.
MEDIUMreporting
Include a statement on cell line authentication (e.g., STR profiling) and mycoplasma testing, or note that these were not performed.
Cell line misidentification and contamination are well-known sources of irreproducibility.
13.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide full identification of antibodies (catalog number and RRID) in a correction.
Antibody catalog numbers are essential for reproducibility as different lots or clones may have different specificities.
14.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a detailed description of housing conditions for animals (light cycle, temperature, enrichment) beyond the generic 'sterile environment'.
Detailed housing conditions are important for reproducibility of animal studies.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Correct the title to remove extraneous text and author names, and ensure it is a concise phrase.
The title currently contains numbering and a redundant subtitle that reduce clarity.

Full text (39,745 chars)Analyzed: Aug 5, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside