Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Crosstalk between ATF4 and MTA1/HDAC1 promotes osteosarcoma progression · 10.18632/oncotarget.6940

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Crosstalk between ATF4 and MTA1/HDAC1 promotes osteosarcoma progression · 10.18632/oncotarget.6940
Item: Crosstalk between ATF4 and MTA1/HDAC1 promotes osteosarcoma progression · 10.18632/oncotarget.6940
Rating: 71
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 · Mixed Methods

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

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

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

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 paper investigates the ATF4/MTA1/HDAC1 axis in osteosarcoma using in vitro, in vivo xenograft, and clinical tissue approaches. Major strengths include a clear scientific premise and ethical approvals; however, critical weaknesses include absent data and code sharing, incomplete statistical reporting (threshold p-values only), and missing design details (randomization, blinding, power analysis). The paper has been retracted (per header), which is a definitive integrity signal.

Evaluated over all eight dimensions; no dimension was not applicable. The three independent reviewers converged closely (same status on all dimensions). The statistics component could not recompute any tests due to threshold-only p-values. The citation check verified 28 references with no retracted or unfound items. The integrity lens flagged data presentation concerns (implausible effect, perfect separation) and the retraction.

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

4 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions2 pass · 5 warn · 1 fail

12 major claims1 overstated4 partial7 supported

The introduction cites relevant prior research on ATF4 in cancer and osteosarcoma, as well as MTA1 and HDAC1, and identifies gaps in knowledge, e.g., 'the role of ATF4 in OS is poorly understood' and 'crosstalk between ATF4 and MTA1 remains largely unstudied'. The premise that ATF4 promotes OS progression is supported. Limitations of prior work are implicitly addressed by the novelty of the proposed feedback loop, but no explicit acknowledgment of specific methodological limitations of prior studies is given. The rationale linking ATF4, MTA1, and HDAC1 is logically coherent.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 92% conf

The premise is well-established with adequate citation of prior work, a clear rationale, and addresses specific gaps in understanding ATF4's role in osteosarcoma.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 2-5]

“The introduction reviews roles of ATF4 in stress response and osteoblast biology, and MTA1 in cancer progression, citing multiple references.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“The present study was aimed at exploring the function of ATF4 in OS. Our results revealed that MTA1/HDAC1 promoted stabilization of ATF4 protein.”

direct quote[Introduction, penultimate paragraph]

“However, crosstalk between ATF4 and MTA1 remains largely unstudied.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior work on ATF4, MTA1, and osteosarcoma, and provides a logical rationale for the study. Limitations of prior research are partially addressed.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Despite being considered a global regulator of osteoblast biology and bone metabolism [], the role of ATF4 in OS is poorly understood.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“However, crosstalk between ATF4 and MTA1 remains largely unstudied.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Paraphrase: The paper cites references on MTA1 expression and its role in various cancers, including OS, and references for MTA1's function as a transcriptional coactivator/corepressor.”

PASSReviewer 3· 92% conf

The premise is well-established through citations on ATF4 in stress and cancer, MTA1 in metastasis, and the specific gap of their crosstalk in osteosarcoma.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“The introduction cites studies on ATF4 in stress, bone biology, and cancer (refs 3-7) and MTA1 in cancer progression and osteosarcoma (refs 8-10).”

direct quote[Introduction, final sentence]

“However, crosstalk between ATF4 and MTA1 remains largely unstudied.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Paradoxically, ATF4 was shown to activate both proliferation and apoptosis.”

The in vivo experiment uses male BALB/c nude mice injected subcutaneously with ATF4-overexpressing or control cells, but does not report randomization method, randomization unit (mouse), or investigator blinding. No a priori power analysis is provided. The sample size is n=10 per group. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for mice are not pre-specified. No outlier handling method is described. For the in vitro work, biological replicate counts are noted (n=3), and controls (e.g., empty vector) are adequate. Several design sub-criteria are not applicable to the in vitro components.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsNOT REPORTED

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitNOT REPORTED

inclusion exclusionNOT REPORTED

randomization methodNOT REPORTED

replicate distinctionADEQUATE

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The in vivo xenograft model lacks key design details such as randomization and blinding, and the sample size is small with no power analysis.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods: Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model]

“Control cells or cells stably overexpressing ATF4 or shATF4 were suspended in PBS and then subcutaneous and intramuscular injected into one nude mouse.”

absence[Methods]

No power analysis reported.

direct quote[Results, Statistics]

“Data shown are the mean ± SD of three independent experiments.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study uses in vitro cell line experiments and an in vivo xenograft model. Randomization, blinding, and power analysis are not reported for the preclinical experiments; the in vivo animal model lacks key design details such as randomization and blinding. Inclusion/exclusion criteria and outlier handling are not reported.

Evidence

absence[Methods, 'Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model']

No randomization method reported for in vivo study

absence[Methods, 'Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model']

No sample size calculation mentioned

direct quote[Results, Figure 1 legend]

“2.5 × 10^5 ATF4/U2OS cells or empty vector cells were injected into the right flank of nude mice (n=10/group)”

WARNReviewer 3· 78% conf

The study uses cell lines and a mouse xenograft model, but several key design elements are underreported: no power analysis, no explicit distinction of biological versus technical replicates, and insufficient detail on randomization and blinding.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Figure 1 legend; Materials and Methods, 'Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model']

“2.5 × 10 5 ATF4/U2OS cells or empty vector cells were injected into the right flank of nude mice ( n =10/group) F.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Statistics']

“Data shown are the mean ± SD of three independent experiments.”

direct quote[Results, 'MTA1 stabilizes ATF4 protein by inhibiting its ubiquitination']

“Treatment with cycloheximide to inhibit protein synthesis further indicated that ATF4 stability increased in cells cotransfected with MTA1, but decreased in MTA1-depleted cells (data not shown).”

The Methods state that male BALB/c nude mice aged 3–4 weeks were used. Age is reported as a range, but weight and health status are missing. The source is reported. No information on housing conditions (light cycle, temperature, enrichment, welfare) is provided. For human samples, demographics beyond OS status are not reported. Cell lines are identified (U2OS, 143B, ZOS) but ZOS cells are not authenticated by STR profiling. For the applicable criteria, sex is reported, age is vaguely reported, and species/strain/source are adequate, while housing conditions and demographics for human samples are not reported.

Sub-criteria

demographicsNOT REPORTED

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthINADEQUATE

housing conditionsNOT REPORTED

species strain sourceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 90% conf

Mouse sex is reported (male) but the age/weight range is vague, and housing conditions are not described.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods: Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model]

“Male BALB/c nude mice aged 3 to 4 weeks were purchased from Beijing Medical Experimental Animal Center (Beijing, China).”

direct quote[Methods: Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model]

“Male BALB/c nude mice aged 3 to 4 weeks”

direct quote[Methods: Cell culture, antibodies and reagents]

“U2OS and 143B human osteosarcoma cell lines were originally purchased from ATCC”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Sex, age, and species are reported for the mouse study, but health status and housing conditions are missing. For human samples, demographics (age, sex, etc.) are not reported. For cell lines, species/strain and source are reported, but sex is not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, 'Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model']

“Male BALB/c nude mice aged 3 to 4 weeks were purchased from Beijing Medical Experimental Animal Center”

absence[Methods, 'Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model']

No housing conditions described

absence[Methods, 'Clinical tissue samples']

Human tissue sample patient demographics not reported

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

Sex of mice is reported (male), but age and weight are incomplete, and housing conditions are not described. Human cell lines and clinical samples lack detailed donor demographics.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model']

“Male BALB/c nude mice aged 3 to 4 weeks were purchased from Beijing Medical Experimental Animal Center (Beijing, China).”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Clinical tissue samples']

“One hundred thirteen OS and paired adjacent non-cancerous tissue specimens were collected between 2011 and 2014 from the Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science & Technology.”

absence[Materials and Methods, 'Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model']

Housing conditions are not described.

The animal study states approval by the Institutional Animal Research Committee of Tongji Medical College. The clinical tissue sample study reports approval by the Committee for Ethical Review of Research in China and patient informed consent. Both statements are adequate for their respective components.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementADEQUATE

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Animal ethics approval is reported with a named committee. For the clinical tissue samples, ethics approval and informed consent are adequately stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods: Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model]

“All animal protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Research Committee of Tongji Medical College.”

direct quote[Methods: Clinical tissue samples]

“The study was approved by the Committee for Ethical Review of Research in China, and the patients signed informed consent forms.”

absence[Methods: Clinical tissue samples]

No regulatory compliance statement (e.g. Declaration of Helsinki) is found.

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals for both the animal study and human tissue study are reported, including named approving bodies and consent for human subjects.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, 'Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model']

“All animal protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Research Committee of Tongji Medical College.”

direct quote[Methods, 'Clinical tissue samples']

“The study was approved by the Committee for Ethical Review of Research in China, and the patients signed informed consent forms.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Animal protocols and human tissue collection both have approval statements with named committees.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model']

“All animal protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Research Committee of Tongji Medical College.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Clinical tissue samples']

“The study was approved by the Committee for Ethical Review of Research in China, and the patients signed informed consent forms.”

absence[Materials and Methods, 'Clinical tissue samples']

Regulatory compliance (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki) is not explicitly stated.

Antibodies are listed with vendors (Santa Cruz, Abcam, etc.) and clone names/catalog numbers, but RRIDs and validation data (e.g., species reactivity, application notes) are not provided. Cell lines (U2OS, 143B, ZOS) are sourced from ATCC with catalog numbers for 143B (CRL-8303), but authentication (e.g., STR profiling) and mycoplasma testing are not reported. MEF cell lines are from a collaborator's lab. Key reagents like Lipofectamine, proteasome inhibitor MG132, and TSA are identified with vendors. Software (GraphPad Prism) is named but without version number. Custom plasmids are described but their sequence verification is mentioned ('All of the new constructs were verified by DNA sequencing').

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingNOT REPORTED

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedINADEQUATE

cell line authenticationNOT REPORTED

software tools identifiedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 82% conf

Antibodies are identified with vendors and catalog numbers, but cell lines lack authentication reports and mycoplasma testing is not mentioned. Reagents and software are adequately described.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods: Cell culture, antibodies and reagents]

“anti-MTA1, anti-ATF4 (sc-22800), Anti-HA (sc-805) and anti-Myc (9E10) antibodies were obtained from Santa Cruz Biotechnology.”

absence[Methods: Cell culture, antibodies and reagents]

No cell line authentication or mycoplasma testing reported.

direct quote[Methods: Statistics]

“All graphs were generated and all statistical analyses ... were performed with GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software Inc.).”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Antibodies, cell lines, and reagents are identified with vendors/catalog numbers, but critical details like RRIDs, validation data, and mycoplasma testing are missing. Software tools are identified but versions are sometimes missing.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, 'Cell culture, antibodies and reagents']

“The primary antibodies used in this study were purchased from the following companies: ... anti-ATF4 (sc-22800) ... from Santa Cruz Biotechnology.”

direct quote[Methods, 'Cell culture, antibodies and reagents']

“Human osteosarcoma 143B cells (ATCC ® CRL-8303™), are suitable transfection host cells...”

direct quote[Methods, 'Statistics']

“All graphs were generated and all statistical analyses (Student's two-tailed t test and log-rank test) were performed with GraphPad Prism software (GraphPad Software Inc.).”

WARNReviewer 3· 82% conf

Antibodies and cell lines are identified by company/catalog, but many lack catalog numbers or RRIDs, and authentication/mycoplasma testing is not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Cell culture, antibodies and reagents']

“U2OS and 143B human osteosarcoma cell lines were originally purchased from ATCC”

absence[Materials and Methods, 'Cell culture, antibodies and reagents']

Mycoplasma testing is not mentioned.

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Cell culture, antibodies and reagents']

“the gamma-tubulin and β-actin antibodies were from Sigma, Germany.”

The paper names tests (Student's two-tailed t test, log-rank test, Spearman rank correlation, Pearson chi-square). However, exact p-values are reported as cutoffs (<0.05, <0.001) without exact numbers, and effect sizes/confidence intervals are not reported. Data presentation shows bar graphs with error bars defined as SD, but individual data points are not shown. Assumptions are not verified. The software is named but without version. The mathematical plausibility of some claims (e.g., '×90% greater') cannot be fully verified.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesNOT REPORTED

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedINADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 82% conf

Statistical tests are named, and some effect sizes (fold changes) are implied, but exact p-values and confidence intervals are often missing, and data presentation is limited.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods: Statistics]

“All graphs were generated and all statistical analyses (Student's two-tailed t test and log-rank test) were performed with GraphPad Prism software.”

direct quote[Methods: Statistics]

“*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001.”

direct quote[Methods: Statistics]

“Data shown are the mean ± SD of three independent experiments.”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Statistical tests are named, software is identified, and p-values are reported. However, exact p-values are often given as thresholds (p < 0.05, p < 0.01, p < 0.001) rather than exact values, effect sizes and confidence intervals are absent, data presentation uses bar graphs without individual points, and assumptions such as normality are not verified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, 'Statistics']

“All graphs were generated and all statistical analyses (Student's two-tailed t test and log-rank test) were performed with GraphPad Prism software”

direct quote[Methods, 'Statistics']

“*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001.”

absence[Results and Methods]

No effect sizes or confidence intervals reported

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Statistical tests are named and software is identified, but exact p-values are rarely reported, effect sizes with confidence intervals are absent, and assumptions (normality, variance) are not verified.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, 'Statistics'; Results]

“*p < 0.05; **p < 0.001.”

absence[Results, all sections]

Effect sizes and confidence intervals are absent in all reported results.

absence[Materials and Methods, 'Statistics']

Statistical test assumptions are not addressed.

The paper does not contain any data availability statement. No raw data are deposited in a public repository. No accession numbers for sequencing or proteomics data are provided (none were generated). Custom code is not mentioned or shared. All four sub-criteria are applicable and are not reported.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersNOT REPORTED

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 95% conf

No data availability statement, no repository deposit, no accession numbers, and no code sharing are provided.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement present.

absence[Entire paper]

No repository deposit mentioned.

absence[Entire paper]

No code sharing mentioned.

FAILReviewer 2· 95% conf

No data availability statement, repository deposit, accession numbers, or code sharing are provided. The paper lacks any statement about data or code availability.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement found

absence[Entire paper]

No repository deposit mentioned

absence[Entire paper]

No code sharing mentioned

FAILReviewer 3· 90% conf

No data or code availability statement is present; no data are deposited in a repository, and custom plasmids/code are not shared in a public repository.

Evidence

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data availability statement is present.

absence[Entire manuscript]

No data deposited in a public repository.

Methods are described in some detail (cell culture, transfections, in vivo model), but some steps are vague (e.g., 'subcutaneous and intramuscular injected into one nude mouse' ). No reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE) is referenced. Limitations are not discussed at all. Conclusions are proportional to the presented in vitro and in vivo data. Funding sources and a conflict-of-interest statement are provided.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessINADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedNOT REPORTED

limitations discussedNOT REPORTED

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 88% conf

Methods are partially described, trial registration is not applicable, no reporting guideline is referenced, and limitations are not discussed, but conclusions are proportional and funding/COI are reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods: Establishment of an in vivo lung metastasis model]

“Control cells or cells stably overexpressing ATF4 or shATF4 were suspended in PBS and then subcutaneous and intramuscular injected into one nude mouse.”

absence[Discussion]

No limitations section is present.

direct quote[GRANT SUPPORT and CONFLICTS OF INTEREST sections]

“This project was supported by the following grants: ... The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Methods are detailed enough for replication in most parts, but trial registration is not applicable, no reporting guideline was followed, not all outcomes are reported with transparency, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional to evidence, and funding/COI statements are provided.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods section]

“All methods described in detail (e.g., 'Cell culture, antibodies and reagents', 'Ubiquitination assays', 'Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)').”

direct quote[Results, paragraph 3]

“Additionally, ATF4 knockdown inhibited OS growth and metastasis (data not shown).”

direct quote[End of paper]

“GRANT SUPPORT ... CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

Methods are partially complete, a reporting guideline is not mentioned, and some outcomes are missing (e.g., ATF4 knockdown data not shown), but conclusions are proportional to the data and conflicts of interest are declared.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, entire]

Reporting guideline not mentioned.

direct quote[Results, 'ATF4 overexpression promotes OS growth and metastasis' and 'MTA1 stabilizes ATF4 protein']

“Additionally, ATF4 knockdown inhibited OS growth and metastasis (data not shown).”

absence[Discussion section]

Limitations are not discussed.

18 copyedit issues flagged (4 major): mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Checked 28 references: 28 verified.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The paper is already published and retracted. An informed reader should weigh the retraction as the primary integrity signal, alongside the significant reporting gaps (no data availability, missing randomization/blinding, threshold p-values) that undermine confidence in the reproducibility and completeness of the reported findings. A correction or independent re-analysis would be warranted to verify the main claims.

1.
HIGHother
Address the retraction: issue a formal correction or retraction statement clarifying the status of the published findings and the reasons for retraction.
The paper header indicates retraction in 2026, which is a definitive integrity concern that must be transparently communicated to readers.
2.
HIGHdata code
Add a data availability statement and deposit raw data (e.g., Western blot images, tumor measurements, cell proliferation curves) in a public repository with a DOI.
Complete absence of data sharing prevents verification and reuse, a critical gap in a published data-driven paper.
3.
HIGHstatistics
Report exact p-values (e.g., p=0.023) instead of threshold symbols for all comparisons in figures and text.
Threshold p-values (p<0.05, p<0.001) omit precision and are non-standard for modern reporting; exact values are needed for meta-analysis and reproducibility.
4.
HIGHrigor
Describe the method of randomization (e.g., computer-generated random numbers) and blinding of investigators for the in vivo xenograft study.
Missing randomization and blinding introduce risk of bias in the animal experiment, a central component of the study.
5.
HIGHrigor
Provide a sample size justification (power analysis) for the mouse xenograft study, including expected effect size, alpha, and power.
The n=10/group is not justified; a power analysis would demonstrate that the study was adequately sized to detect the reported effects.
6.
HIGHreporting
Include a dedicated 'Limitations' section in the Discussion addressing caveats such as single mouse model, lack of patient demographics, and the correlative nature of clinical data.
The absence of a limitations discussion leaves important methodological weaknesses unacknowledged.
7.
HIGHreporting
Replace all 'data not shown' statements (e.g., for ATF4 knockdown and cycloheximide experiments) with the actual data in supplementary figures or tables.
Key results are described but not shown, preventing readers from evaluating the evidence for these claims.
8.
HIGHrigor
Report cell line authentication (STR profiling) and mycoplasma testing for all cell lines used.
Without authentication, the identity of cell lines and absence of contamination cannot be confirmed, undermining in vitro findings.
9.
HIGHstatistics
Provide effect sizes (e.g., mean difference) with 95% confidence intervals for all primary comparisons.
Effect sizes and CIs communicate the magnitude and precision of findings; their absence limits interpretation and meta-analytic use.
10.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the author name block: insert spaces or commas between author names (e.g., 'Zeng Heng, Zhang Jin-ming, Du Yu, ...') to resolve the run-together formatting.
The corrupted author list is a presentation error that obscures proper attribution.
11.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Replace the corrupted symbol '×90%' with '~90%' or 'approximately 90%' in the Results and Abstract.
The multiplication sign appears to be a formatting artifact that changes the meaning; the intended metric should be clearly stated.
12.
MEDIUMstatistics
Add individual data points (e.g., dot plots) to bar graphs in figures to show data distribution and sample size.
Bar graphs with only error bars can conceal data distribution and potential outliers; individual points improve transparency.

Full text (43,122 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

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