Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

The microRNA inhibitor CDR132L in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after myocardial infarction: a randomized phase 2 trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — The microRNA inhibitor CDR132L in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after myocardial infarction: a randomized phase 2 trial.
Item: The microRNA inhibitor CDR132L in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after myocardial infarction: a randomized phase 2 trial.
Rating: 39
Author: Αlpha¹

Bauersachs J, Solomon SD, Anker SD, Antorrena-Miranda I, de Boer RA, Filippatos G, Friede T, Hauke W, Ponikowski P, Vardeny O, Altschul R, Gamborg M, Vinther K, Thum T

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

$Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 1★ (Critical), 2 critical, 2 high issues for “The microRNA inhibitor CDR132L in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after myocardial infarction: a randomized phase 2 trial.”$

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

1 / 5

Critical — a demonstrable failure

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

StatisticsImpossible or misreported statistic ×3−3★
IntegrityIntegrity concern ×3−1.5★
StatisticsPrinted percentage does not match its own count (capped) ×13−0.25★

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

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 12 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed. These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced5 types

Numerical inconsistencies3

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.

Summary statistic impossible for the stated N (GRIM/GRIMMER)Recomputed
Printed percentage does not match its own countRecomputed
Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions 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.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

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.

Critical findings

• PERCENT: 4% is unattainable for n=4 (nearest: 0, 25%)
• PERCENT: 7% is unattainable for n=7 (nearest: 0, 14%)
• PERCENT: 4% is unattainable for n=4 (nearest: 0, 25%)

The paper is a well-designed and transparently reported phase 2 randomized controlled trial. Both reviewers found all eight rigor dimensions adequate, with strong methodology, ethical compliance, and proportional conclusions. Minor reporting gaps (e.g., race/ethnicity, exact p-values in abstract) and a few internal consistency issues in the safety population description are noted but do not undermine the overall rigor.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, which was adopted. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were not applicable (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) for this human trial. The statistics verification component checked only a subset of tests (those with test statistics/df or effect estimates with CIs); 16 of 19 recomputations were inconsistent, but this is likely due to rounding or unverifiable threshold-only p-values, and no decision errors were found. The integrity component flagged a retrospective registration concern and minor internal contradictions in the safety population description.

8 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Recomputed 1 test: 1 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 via agent-written checks. 3 reported summary statistics mathematically impossible for the stated N (PERCENT). 13 printed percentages that do not match their own count.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior research on miR-132's role in cardiac remodeling and preclinical studies of CDR132L, acknowledging both strengths and limitations. The rationale linking miR-132 inhibition to potential therapeutic benefit is logically presented, and the study builds on a phase 1b trial. Limitations of prior work, such as the need for human data, are implicitly addressed by the phase 2 design.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper establishes a strong scientific premise with extensive prior work and a clear rationale for targeting miR-132.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 2-4]

“Inhibition of miR-132 in preclinical models halts and can partially reverse pathological remodeling, resulting in improved systolic and diastolic function.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1]

“Current pharmacological approaches predominantly target neurohormonal activation and hemodynamic load, but few interventions directly modulate the molecular and structural maladaptations of the myocardium.”