Low-Dose Yellow Fever Vaccine in Adults in Africa.
Kimathi D, Juan-Giner A, Bob NS, Orindi B, Namulwana ML, Diatta A, Cheruiyot S, Fall G, Dia M, Hamaluba MM, Nyehangane D, Karanja HK, Gitonga JN, Mugo D, Omuoyo DO, Hussein M, Oloo E, Kamau N, Wafula J, Bendera J, Silvester N, Mwavita J, Joshua M, Mwendwa J, Agababyona C, Ngetsa C, Aisha N, Moki F, Buluku T, Munene M, Mwanga-Amumpaire J, Lutwama J, Kayiwa J, Kamaara E, Barrett AD, Kaleebu P, Bejon P, Sall AA, Grais RF, Warimwe GM, NIFTY Investigators
- DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMoa2407293
- Record issued
- 2026-08-15
- Engine
- 7.39.0
- Exported
- 2026-09-20
Prepared by Alpha1. This document is confidential: it is intended for the recipient it was shared with and must not be redistributed. The live record at alpha1science.com/verify/ad920e63-272c-4dd8-a909-510f8c7acb88 is authoritative.
How this rating was calculated
- IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
- ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
- ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★
- No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.
- The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 4 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.
- 01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
The primary outcome is seroconversion measured by neutralizing antibody titers (PRNT50), which is a surrogate for clinical protection against yellow fever. The paper does not provide evidence linking seroconversion to clinical outcomes such as prevention of yellow fever disease, nor does it demonstrate target engagement at the tested doses beyond the antibody response itself. Although seroconversion is a widely accepted surrogate for vaccine efficacy, the manuscript does not cite validated evidence establishing the surrogate-to-clinical outcome link.
“The primary outcome was seroconversion at 28 days after vaccination with each fractional dose as compared with the standard dose, evaluated in a noninferiority analysis. Seroconversion was defined as an antibody titer at day 28 that was at least four times as…”
This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen 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 well-reported randomized noninferiority trial. The main methodological strengths are the rigorous study design, clear statistical analysis, and transparent reporting. The primary weaknesses are the lack of an explicit informed consent statement in the manuscript and an insufficiently detailed data availability statement.
Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, which is adopted. The evaluation covers all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were marked not applicable (e.g., species/strain for human trials, code sharing for a trial with no custom code). The statistics verification component found no recomputable tests, so no errors were detected, but the paper's statistics are not endorsed as 'correct' — only that what was checked was consistent.
Numerical inconsistencies
1 finding · worst lowValues 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
- lowinternal contradictionThe abstract reports 111 vaccine-related adverse events, while the results section reports 111 related events (30+26+29+26=111). This is consistent, but the abstract also mentions 103 mild, 7 moderate, and 1 severe, which sums to 111. However, the results table shows 415 mild, 128 moderate, 3 severe, which are different numbers. The abstract numbers likely refer to vaccine-related events only, while the table includes all events. This is not a contradiction but could be confusing.
“A total of 111 vaccine-related adverse events were reported: 103 were mild in severity, 7 were moderate, and 1 was severe.”
AbstractFind in source
Overstated conclusions
1 finding · worst highConclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.
- Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.
- supportedReviewers 1, 2A yellow fever vaccination dose as low as 500 IU was noninferior to the standard dose of 13,803 IU for producing seroconversion within 28 days.The primary outcome analysis shows noninferiority for the 500-IU dose in both ITT and per-protocol populations, with confidence intervals entirely above the -10 percentage point margin.Evidence: Table 2 and Results section: difference for 500-IU dose vs standard was 0.01 percentage points (95% CI, -5.0 to 5.1) in ITT and -1.8 percentage points (95% CI, -6.7 to 3.2) in per-protocol.
“A yellow fever vaccination dose as low as 500 IU was noninferior to the standard dose of 13,803 IU for producing seroconversion within 28 days.”
ConclusionFind in source - supportedReviewers 1, 2The 250-IU dose did not meet the noninferiority criteria in the per-protocol analysis at 28 days.The per-protocol analysis shows a difference of -6.7 percentage points (95% CI, -11.7 to 1.6), with the lower bound below -10, so noninferiority is not met.Evidence: Results section: 'the 250-IU dose did not meet the noninferiority criteria in the per-protocol analysis at 28 days.'
“Therefore, the 250-IU dose did not meet the noninferiority criteria in the per-protocol analysis at 28 days.”
ResultsFind in source - supportedReviewers 1, 2The findings provide support to the WHO recommendation that one fifth of a standard dose of vaccine be considered for use in epidemics, provided that the standard dose in the vaccine used is 500 IU or higher.The trial demonstrates noninferiority for doses down to 500 IU, which is one fifth of the standard dose used (13,803 IU / 5 = 2760 IU, but the 500 IU dose is lower than one fifth; however, the statement is about considering one fifth of a standard dose, and the trial supports that doses as low as 500 IU are noninferior, which is consistent with the recommendation).Evidence: Discussion: 'The findings from our trial provide support to the WHO recommendation that one fifth of a standard dose of vaccine be considered for use in epidemics, provided that the standard dose in the vaccine used is 500 IU or higher.'
“The findings from our trial provide support to the WHO recommendation that one fifth of a standard dose of vaccine be considered for use in epidemics, provided that the standard dose in the vaccine used is 500 IU or higher.”
Discussion ¶2Find in source - supportedReviewer 1Postvaccination viremia was infrequent, in contrast with somewhat higher proportions of viremia seen in other trials.The trial observed viremia in 12 of 480 participants (2.5%), which is lower than the 11% to 82% reported in other trials, supporting the claim.Evidence: Results: 'Of the total trial population, 12 participants (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.3) were positive for yellow fever vaccine viremia between days 2 and 10.'
Of the total trial population, 12 participants (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.3) were positive for yellow fever vaccine viremia between days 2 and 10.
Resultsreviewer’s wording - supportedReviewer 2Lower doses led to considerably lower neutralization titers and lower levels of seroconversion at day 10.The claim is supported by the day-10 data showing lower seroconversion rates and GMTs for fractional doses.Evidence: At day 10, seroconversion was 50% for 250 IU, 61% for 500 IU and 1000 IU, vs 85% for standard dose.
As in previous studies, our trial showed that lower doses led to considerably lower neutralization titers and lower levels of seroconversion at day 10, even though these differences were erased by the peak antibody responses seen at day 28.
Discussion ¶4reviewer’s wording
Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit.
- INADEQUATESurrogate endpointThe primary outcome is seroconversion measured by neutralizing antibody titers (PRNT50), which is a surrogate for clinical protection against yellow fever. The paper does not provide evidence linking seroconversion to clinical outcomes such as prevention of yellow fever disease, nor does it demonstrate target engagement at the tested doses beyond the antibody response itself. Although seroconversion is a widely accepted surrogate for vaccine efficacy, the manuscript does not cite validated evidence establishing the surrogate-to-clinical outcome link.
“The primary outcome was seroconversion at 28 days after vaccination with each fractional dose as compared with the standard dose, evaluated in a noninferiority analysis. Seroconversion was defined as an antibody titer at day 28 that was at least four times as high as the antibody titer before vaccination, as measured by a plaque reduction neutralization test.”
- ADEQUATEEffect sizeThe primary effect is the noninferiority of fractional doses (500 IU and 1000 IU) compared to the standard dose for seroconversion at 28 days. The differences in seroconversion incidence are small (0.01 percentage points for 500 IU and 1000 IU in ITT) and the confidence intervals are within the prespecified noninferiority margin of -10 percentage points. The effect is statistically supported and anchored to a clinically meaningful threshold (noninferiority margin) based on public health considerations.
“The difference in the incidence of seroconversion between the 1000-IU dose and the standard dose was 0.01 percentage points (95% CI, −5.0 to 5.1) in the intention-to-treat population ... and those between the 250-IU dose and the standard dose were −4.4 percentage points (95% CI, −9.4 to 0.7) ...”
Data authenticity concerns
None foundAn 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.
Checked — nothing surfaced.
Reporting gaps
1 finding · worst mediumRequired detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.
- Data/code availability incompleteAssessed
The introduction cites prior trials on fractional dosing, including a Brazilian trial with the 17DD substrain, and notes limitations such as generalizability and lack of formal noninferiority analysis. The rationale for the trial is clearly stated: to assess noninferiority of fractional doses of the 17D-204 vaccine. The limitations of prior research are addressed by designing a formal noninferiority trial in a broader adult population.
“A dose-finding trial that was carried out in Brazil with the use of the 17DD vaccine substrain showed that a dose of 587 IU resulted in seroconversion in 96.9% of the participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4 to 99.2), and a dose of 158 IU resulted in seroconversion in 88.5% of the participants (95% CI, 81.5 to 93.6).”
“We conducted the Noninferiority Fractional-Doses Trial for Yellow Fever Vaccine (NIFTY) to assess the immunogenicity of fractional doses (1000 IU, 500 IU, or 250 IU) of the 17D-204 yellow fever vaccine manufactured by the Institut Pasteur de Dakar in Dakar, Senegal, for noninferiority to the standard vaccine dose (13,803 IU).”
“However, because the potency of doses can vary substantially according to manufacturer and batch, the generalizability of these data may be limited.”
“However, because the potency of doses can vary substantially according to manufacturer and batch, the generalizability of these data may be limited.”
“We conducted the Noninferiority Fractional-Doses Trial for Yellow Fever Vaccine (NIFTY) to assess the immunogenicity of fractional doses (1000 IU, 500 IU, or 250 IU) of the 17D-204 yellow fever vaccine manufactured by the Institut Pasteur de Dakar in Dakar, Senegal, for noninferiority to the standard vaccine dose (13,803 IU).”
Randomization was performed in fixed blocks by an independent firm using a computerized system, with equal allocation. Blinding is described as double-blind. A sample size calculation was provided (120 per group, 90% power, one-sided alpha 0.025). Inclusion/exclusion criteria are detailed. The analysis populations (ITT and per-protocol) are defined. Outlier handling is not explicitly described, but the per-protocol exclusions are based on baseline characteristics, which is appropriate. Controls are inherent in the standard-dose comparator arm. Independent replication is not applicable for a single pivotal trial.
“Randomization was performed in fixed blocks prepared in advance by an independent firm (DiagnoSearch LifeSciences) with the use of a computerized randomization system, with equal allocation to each of the four dose groups.”
“Assuming a 95% incidence of seroconversion, we estimated that 120 participants per dose group would provide the trial with 90% power to determine noninferiority at a margin of −10 percentage points and at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.”
“Volunteers were eligible for inclusion if they were between 18 and 59 years of age; were either HIV-negative on a standard serologic screening test or HIV-positive, receiving treatment, and in clinically stable condition with a CD4 count of more than 200 cells per microliter ; were not pregnant or lactating; had no history of wild-type yellow fever virus infection or vaccination with yellow fever vaccine; and were able to adhere to the trial procedures.”
“Randomization was performed in fixed blocks prepared in advance by an independent firm (DiagnoSearch LifeSciences) with the use of a computerized randomization system, with equal allocation to each of the four dose groups.”
“This double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial was conducted at the Kenya Medical Research Institute−Wellcome Trust Research Programme Clinical Trials Facility in Kilifi County, Kenya, and the Epicenter Mbarara Research Centre in Mbarara City, Uganda.”
“Assuming a 95% incidence of seroconversion, we estimated that 120 participants per dose group would provide the trial with 90% power to determine noninferiority at a margin of −10 percentage points and at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.”
Sex is reported for each group (e.g., 65% female in the 250-IU group). Age is reported as mean ± SD. Health status includes HIV status and CD4 counts. Demographics are reported in Table 1. Species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable for a human trial.
“The mean (±SD) age at enrollment was 39.7±11.5 years, the majority of the participants (296 [62%]) were women, and 38 (8%) were HIV-positive at baseline.”
“Age — yr | 40.2±11.0 | 38.5±11.7 | 40.4±11.6 | 39.8±11.9”
“The mean (±SD) age at enrollment was 39.7±11.5 years, the majority of the participants (296 [62%]) were women, and 38 (8%) were HIV-positive at baseline.”
“were either HIV-negative on a standard serologic screening test or HIV-positive, receiving treatment, and in clinically stable condition with a CD4 count of more than 200 cells per microliter”
The trial protocol was approved by multiple named ethics committees (Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee, Kenya Medical Research Institute Scientific and Ethics Review Unit, Mbarara University of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee, and Uganda National Council of Sciences and Technology). Regulatory approval was obtained from the Kenya Pharmacy and Poisons Board and the Uganda National Drug Authority. Informed consent is not explicitly described in the text, but it is standard for such trials and likely detailed in the protocol; however, the paper does not state it explicitly, which is a minor gap.
“The trial protocol was reviewed and approved by the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee, the Kenya Medical Research Institute Scientific and Ethics Review Unit, Mbarara University of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee, and the Uganda National Council of Sciences and Technology.”
“Regulatory approval was obtained from the Kenya Pharmacy and Poisons Board and the Uganda National Drug Authority.”
“The trial protocol was reviewed and approved by the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee, the Kenya Medical Research Institute Scientific and Ethics Review Unit, Mbarara University of Science and Technology Research Ethics Committee, and the Uganda National Council of Sciences and Technology.”
“Regulatory approval was obtained from the Kenya Pharmacy and Poisons Board and the Uganda National Drug Authority.”
The vaccine is identified as the Institut Pasteur de Dakar 17D-204 yellow fever vaccine, with doses specified. The PRNT and RT-PCR assays are described as using standardized methods at WHO-accredited laboratories. Software tools are not explicitly identified, but the statistical analysis likely used standard software; this is a minor gap.
“The participants were randomly assigned to receive vaccination with yellow fever vaccine at a full standard dose (13,803 IU) or at a fractionated dose of 1000 IU, 500 IU, or 250 IU.”
“The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) assays for this trial were conducted according to well-described standardized methods at the WHO-accredited regional yellow fever reference laboratory at the Institut Pasteur de Dakar.”
“The participants were randomly assigned to receive vaccination with yellow fever vaccine at a full standard dose (13,803 IU) or at a fractionated dose of 1000 IU, 500 IU, or 250 IU.”
“The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) assays for this trial were conducted according to well-described standardized methods at the WHO-accredited regional yellow fever reference laboratory at the Institut Pasteur de Dakar.”
The primary analysis uses noninferiority testing with confidence intervals, which is appropriate. Tests are named (noninferiority analysis, PRNT assays). Assumptions are not explicitly verified but the analysis uses standard methods. Exact p-values are not reported; instead, confidence intervals are provided, which is acceptable for this trial type. Effect sizes with confidence intervals are reported. Statistical software is not identified. Data presentation includes per-group n and confidence intervals. Mathematical plausibility checks: the numbers appear consistent; no arithmetic errors detected.
“Noninferiority was shown if the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in the incidence of seroconversion was greater than −10 percentage points.”
“Noninferiority was shown if the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in the incidence of seroconversion was greater than −10 percentage points.”
“The difference in the incidence of seroconversion between the factional doses and the standard dose at 28 days was −4.4 percentage points (95% CI, −9.4 to 0.7) with the 250-IU dose, and 0.01 percentage points (95% CI, −5.0 to 5.1) with both the 500-IU and 1000-IU doses in the intention-to-treat analysis”
The paper mentions a data sharing statement is available with the full text, but the specific mechanism is not described in the provided text. No repository deposit or accession numbers are mentioned. Code sharing is not applicable as no custom code is described.
“A data sharing statement provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org (https://www.nejm.org/) .”
“A data sharing statement provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org”
The trial is registered (NCT04059471). Methods are detailed enough for replication. A reporting guideline is not explicitly mentioned, but the paper follows CONSORT-like structure. All outcomes are reported, including negative results (250-IU dose not meeting noninferiority in per-protocol). Limitations are discussed. Conclusions are proportional. Funding and COI are disclosed.
“NIFTY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04059471 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04059471) .”
“Our trial has limitations, including with regard to statistical power.”
“Supported by grants from the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP- RIA2016V-1633) and the Wellcome Trust (203077_Z_16_Z). Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org (https://www.nejm.org/) .”
“NIFTY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04059471”
“Our trial has limitations, including with regard to statistical power.”
Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.
Broken references and links
None foundReferences checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.
Checked — nothing surfaced.
Checked 18 references by DOI: 16 verified — 2 no DOI (shown, not verified).
- NO DOIYellow fever vaccine: WHO position on the use of fractional doses — June 2017No DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
- NO DOIA simple micro-culture method for the study of group B arbovirusesNo DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
1 data/code link checked; 1 live.
- datahttps://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04059471LIVEHTTP 200Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
Copyediting
6 minorWording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.
No major wording or formatting errors. 6 minor suggestions below.
6 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, clarity.
- MINORtypoAbstract, Results“factional doses”→ fractional dosesTypographical error in the abstract.
- MINORconsistencyResults, Safety“66 (55%) of the participants in the 250-IU group reported 122 adverse events”→ Ensure percentages are consistent with denominators (66/120 = 55%).Percentages appear correct, but check rounding consistency.
- MINORclarityMethods, Trial Design and Participants“were either HIV-negative on a standard serologic screening test or HIV-positive, receiving treatment, and in clinically stable condition with a CD4 count of more than 200 cells per microliter”→ Consider rephrasing for clarity: 'were HIV-negative on a standard serologic screening test, or were HIV-positive, receiving treatment, and in clinically stable condition with a CD4 count >200 cells/μL'.The sentence is slightly awkward but understandable.
- MINORtypoResults, Immunogenicity“factional”→ fractionalTypographical error in 'factional'.
- MINORconsistencyTable 3“75 (62)”→ 75 (63)Inconsistent percentage for 500-IU group adverse events; text says 63%, table says 62%.
- MINORclarityMethods, Trial Procedures and Follow-up“participants were randomly assigned to have one additional blood-sampling visit at day 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 (i.e., 80 participants on each day)”→ Clarify that 80 participants were assigned to each day, totaling 480.The sentence could be clearer about the total number of participants assigned to each day.
This is a post-publication audit. The published paper is robust in its design and reporting, but an informed reader should note two reporting gaps: the absence of an explicit informed consent statement and the lack of a detailed data availability statement. These do not invalidate the findings but would warrant a correction or clarification from the authors.
- 1.HIGHethicsAdd an explicit statement about informed consent in the Methods section, specifying whether written consent was obtained and from whom (e.g., all participants provided written informed consent).Informed consent is a fundamental ethical requirement; its absence is a reporting gap that could raise concerns for readers and journals.
- 2.HIGHdata codeProvide a detailed data availability statement in the manuscript, including the mechanism for data access (e.g., via a data access committee) and any conditions, and deposit de-identified participant data in a public repository with an accession number.The current statement is vague; a detailed statement is expected for a data-driven clinical trial to enable reproducibility and secondary analyses.
- 3.HIGHreportingMention adherence to a reporting guideline such as CONSORT in the Methods or a separate section.Explicitly stating adherence to CONSORT improves transparency and is standard for clinical trials.
- 4.MEDIUMreportingIdentify the statistical software used for analyses (e.g., R version, SAS) in the Statistical Analysis section.Software identification is a standard reporting expectation that aids reproducibility.
- 5.MEDIUMreportingClarify the blinding procedure: specify who was blinded (participants, investigators, outcome assessors) and how blinding was maintained.The paper states 'double-blind' but does not detail the blinding procedure, which is a minor reporting gap.
- 6.MEDIUMreportingInclude a statement on the handling of missing data in the statistical analysis section.Missing data handling is important for the validity of the analysis and is not currently described.
- 7.MEDIUMreportingAdd a statement about the verification of statistical assumptions (e.g., normality) or justify why they are not needed for the noninferiority analysis.Assumption verification is a standard part of statistical reporting; its absence is a minor gap.
- 8.MEDIUMreportingProvide a more detailed description of the randomization sequence generation and allocation concealment.While the method is described, additional detail on concealment would strengthen the reporting.
- 9.MEDIUMreportingSpecify the exact version of the vaccine and its lot number in the Methods.Lot number and version are important for reproducibility and traceability of the investigational product.
- 10.LOWcopyeditCorrect the typographical error 'factional' to 'fractional' in the Abstract and Results sections.Typographical errors can undermine the professionalism of the manuscript.
- 11.LOWcopyeditEnsure consistency of adverse event percentages between Table 3 and the text (e.g., 500-IU group: text says 63%, table says 62%).Inconsistent numbers can confuse readers and may indicate a data error.
- 12.LOWcopyeditClarify the sentence about additional blood-sampling visits to specify that 80 participants were assigned to each day, totaling 480.The current wording is slightly ambiguous and could be misinterpreted.
- 13.LOWreportingAdd a note on the generalizability of the findings to other vaccine substrains and populations.The paper acknowledges this limitation in the introduction but could reiterate it in the discussion.
- 14.LOWreportingConsider adding a supplementary table with individual participant data or a link to a public repository for non-identifiable data.This would enhance transparency and enable independent re-analysis.
The star rating is the report’s one-glance summary. Every paper starts at 5★ and loses stars for the concrete problems the review finds — so a rating is never a vague average, it’s a running total you can read line by line under “How this rating was calculated.”
- Reporting — 8 dimensionseach dimension that fully fails−½★
- each dimension partially met−¼★
- Statistics · Integrity · Claimseach serious problem−1★
- each medium problem−½★
- Citationseach retracted or unverifiable reference−¼★
- Copyeditonly when the manuscript needs a full edit−½★
The rating never drops below 1★, and a demonstrable critical failure (an impossible statistic, a proven ethics violation) caps it at 1★ on its own — so the stars can never look healthy when the verdict is CRITICAL.
The rating draws on a panel of agents. Three independent Kaimen Rigor reviewers grade the eight dimensions below across several independent passes (the shown verdict is their majority vote — steadier than any single run), isolate the paper’s major claims and check its own evidence backs them, and flag integrity concerns. Alongside them, a citation agent resolves every reference against Crossref, OpenAlex, and Retraction Watch; a statistics agent recomputes reported tests; and rule-based checks verify that declared data/code links actually resolve. Full text is required — an abstract-only submission is not analyzed.
Graded against NIH, MDAR, ARRIVE 2.0, CONSORT, EQUATOR, and RRID guidelines. A dimension that doesn’t apply to the study type is skipped, never penalized.
This Kaimen Rigor review is model-assisted and is not a substitute for formal expert review. It complements human evaluation by surfacing potential methodological concerns — verify each finding against the source.