Effect of adjuvant carboplatin intensified chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy on survival in women with high risk, early stage, triple negative breast cancer (CITRINE): randomised, open label phase 3 trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Effect of adjuvant carboplatin intensified chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy on survival in women with high risk, early stage, triple negative breast cancer (CITRINE): randomised, open label phase 3 trial.
Item: Effect of adjuvant carboplatin intensified chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy on survival in women with high risk, early stage, triple negative breast cancer (CITRINE): randomised, open label phase 3 trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Liu Y, Gong Y, Zhu XZ, Liu GY, Yu KD, Yang F, Chen L, He M, Hu Z, Chen CM, Cao AY, Li JJ, Hou YF, Di GH, Wu J, Jiang YZ, Fan L, Wang ZH, Shao ZM

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 0 high issues for “Effect of adjuvant carboplatin intensified chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy on survival in women with high risk, early stage, triple negative breast cancer (CITRINE): randomised, open label phase 3 trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 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

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 well-conducted and transparently reported phase 3 randomized trial. The methodology is rigorous, with proper randomization, blinding of assessors, pre-specified power analysis, and appropriate statistical handling of non-proportional hazards. Minor reporting gaps (e.g., missing CONSORT flow diagram details, exact p-values for piecewise analyses) and a few copyedit issues do not undermine the core findings.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and this was adopted. The evaluation covered the full text, including methods, results, and supplementary materials. Non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded. The statistics verification covered only a subset of reported tests; the absence of detected errors does not confirm overall statistical correctness.

5 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 7 tests: 7 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 5 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The paper cites multiple prior studies (ECOG E1199, CALGB 9741, GIM-2, EBCTCG meta-analysis) to establish the standard of care and the rationale for dose-dense regimens. It acknowledges the controversy regarding platinum agents' long-term survival benefit and the limited evidence in the adjuvant setting, directly motivating the trial. The hypothesis follows logically from the cited evidence.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The introduction establishes a clear scientific rationale for evaluating carboplatin in the adjuvant setting, citing prior studies and identifying the evidence gap.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) E1199 study optimised the administration of taxanes and suggested that weekly paclitaxel, after anthracyclines, improves disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with triple negative breast cancer.”