Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody L9LS for malaria prevention in children exposed to perennial malaria transmission in Kenya: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody L9LS for malaria prevention in children exposed to perennial malaria transmission in Kenya: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial
Item: Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody L9LS for malaria prevention in children exposed to perennial malaria transmission in Kenya: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial
Rating: 94
Author: Alpha1

Steinhardt LC, Kwambai TK, Oneko M, Ouma E, Njoroge R, Callier V, Hu Z, Gutman JR, Yego R, Otieno K, Onoka K, Otieno L, Oduol K, Serebryannyy L, Lin BC, Adams W, Hickman S, Preston AC, Carlton K, Holdsworth M, Xiao Y, O Ter Kuile F, Odongo W, Murphy SC, Tran TM, Kariuki S, Crompton PD, Seder RA, Kenya Malaria mAb Trials Team.

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 4 high issues for “Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody L9LS for malaria prevention in children exposed to perennial malaria transmission in Kenya: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 10, 2026

Read alongside

Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody L9LS for malaria prevention in children exposed to perennial malaria transmission in Kenya: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1016/s0140-6736(26)00258-8

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/c2a9caeb-1e90-4128-b54a-037a6f698b00" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/c2a9caeb-1e90-4128-b54a-037a6f698b00/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 4 high issues for “Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody L9LS for malaria prevention in children exposed to perennial malaria transmission in Kenya: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

44cf66236b743587df7d33753d0d580361d478ad98a64c376a704b44ab2d5041

Verify via API

Issued Aug 10, 2026Engine 7.29.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody L9LS for malaria prevention in children exposed to perennial malaria transmission in Kenya: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 10, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

4.25 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run on this paper: the pass that reads its reported means did not complete. No reported mean was checked for arithmetic impossibility.

Biggest issues

01Other integrity concern
mediumAuthenticityreviewer-assessedFull detail
Trial NCT07082205 was first submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov on 2025-06-24, after the registered study start date of 2025-05-02. Retrospective registration means the protocol and outcomes were not on the public record before the study ran, which is what prospective registration exists to establish.
NCT07082205
reviewer’s wording

Findings by category

01ArithmeticNone found 102OverreachOverstated conclusions · partly checked 103AuthenticityData authenticity concerns 104DisclosureReporting gaps 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit17 minor suggestions

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 published phase 2 clinical trial is generally well-conducted and reported, with a clear scientific premise, robust design, and transparent reporting of methods and results. The main weaknesses are the managed-access data sharing plan without a named repository or code sharing, and several missing figure/table references in the Results section that reduce clarity.

Two independent reviewer evaluations were synthesized; the reviewers agreed on 7 dimensions but diverged on data code availability, where a more conservative assessment was applied based on the absence of a named repository and code sharing. The statistics component recomputed only 3 tests (all consistent); the citation check found no retracted or missing references; the integrity check flagged a potential retrospective registration (NCT07082205) but that trial number is not the primary trial of this paper (NCT05400655).

Numerical inconsistencies

None found

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.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

1 finding · worst low

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

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

Data authenticity concerns

1 finding · worst medium

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

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting gaps

1 finding · worst medium

Required 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

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites prior research on malaria vaccines, drug resistance, and previous monoclonal antibody trials (CIS43LS, L9LS). It highlights gaps: no data in children <6 years or perennial transmission, and the need for longer protection. The rationale follows logically from these gaps. Limitations of prior work (e.g., seasonal transmission, older age groups) are explicitly addressed.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study clearly establishes its scientific premise by citing prior work on L9LS and other monoclonal antibodies, outlining the rationale for their use in malaria prevention, and identifying key knowledge gaps addressed by the current trial.

Evidence

“Phase 1 and 2 field trials in Africa have shown that CIS43LS and L9LS are safe and highly efficacious against P falciparum infection.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

“Antimalaria monoclonal antibodies represent a potentially transformative new intervention that can directly neutralise sporozoites, the infectious form of the malaria parasite that mosquitoes inject into the skin and blood, preventing malaria infection before liver-stage development.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“This trial was designed to address several questions in the development of monoclonal antibodies for key at-risk populations: first, whether monoclonal antibodies can maintain efficacy in areas of intense perennial transmission, where continuous P falciparum exposure might overwhelm protection or potentially accelerate monoclonal antibody clearance; second, whether protective efficacy can be achieved in infants and young children—the population bearing the highest malaria burden; and third, whether repeated monoclonal antibody dosing can extend protection to 12 months.”

Introduction ¶5Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes the scientific premise by citing prior work on malaria burden, vaccines, and monoclonal antibodies, and provides a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“Phase 1 and 2 field trials in Africa have shown that CIS43LS and L9LS are safe and highly efficacious against P falciparum infection.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“This trial was designed to address several questions in the development of monoclonal antibodies for key at-risk populations: first, whether monoclonal antibodies can maintain efficacy in areas of intense perennial transmission... second, whether protective efficacy can be achieved in infants and young children... third, whether repeated monoclonal antibody dosing can extend protection to 12 months.”

“Because L9LS demonstrated superior potency compared with CIS43LS in mouse models and showed more favourable characteristics for product development, it was prioritised for further clinical development and evaluation in additional settings and age groups.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

Randomization used centralised computer-generated lists with permuted block designs. Blinding was maintained by covering syringes and using separate nurses. A power analysis is provided. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are listed. The modified ITT and per-protocol populations are defined, addressing outlier handling.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study design is robust for a clinical trial, detailing randomization, blinding, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. A power analysis is reported, and appropriate controls are used.

Evidence

“In parts 1a and 1b, within each age-dose cohort, participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to L9LS or placebo by use of permuted block randomisation in R with block sizes of four.”

Methods ¶1Find in source

“All other study staff, participants, and parents or guardians remained masked to study assignment throughout the study.”

Methods ¶2Find in source

“For part 2, the sample size was calculated to detect a target 60% protective efficacy of two doses of L9LS against infection at 12 months in the younger age group (5–17 months) with 80% power, assuming a 45% infection rate in the placebo group by 12 months, and 25% attrition, yielding 324 participants (162 per age stratum).”

Statistical analysis ¶1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study design is rigorously reported with adequate randomization, blinding, sample size justification, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“In part 2, randomisation was stratified according to participant age... by use of permuted block randomisation with block sizes of six and nine.”

“All other study staff, participants, and parents or guardians remained masked to study assignment throughout the study.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical analysis]

Sex is reported in Table 1 for each group. Age and weight are reported as median (IQR) and mean (SD). Health status is defined by inclusion criteria. Demographics include study site, baseline parasitaemia. Sex_justified is not applicable as both sexes were enrolled.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study adequately reports demographic characteristics of the human participants, including age, sex, and health status.

Evidence

“In part 2, 152 (47%) of 324 participants were male, 172 (53%) were female, 199 (61%) were enrolled at Siaya Hospital, and the remaining 125 (39%) were enrolled at Kogelo Dispensary ().”

Results ¶2Find in source

“In part 2, healthy children aged 5–59 months were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of centralised computer-generated lists to receive two doses of L9LS at 10–20 mg/kg at baseline and month 6, one dose of L9LS at baseline and placebo at month 6, or placebo at both timepoints.”

AbstractFind in source

“Eligibility criteria for all study parts included HIVnegative status, absence of sickle cell disease, no wasting or stunting, no killed or live vaccine within 14 days (changed from 28 days in a protocol amendment in October, 2023) before study agent administration, no receipt of malaria vaccine, and normal blood counts and chemistry values.”

Methods ¶2Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Biological variables (sex, age, weight, health status) are reported adequately for this human clinical trial.

Evidence

“Female | 29 (54%) | 27 (52%) | 27 (48%) | 28 (52%) | 34 (63%) | 27 (50%)”

Table 1Find in source

“Age, months | 37 (25–45) | 34 (27–49) | 31 (24–41) | 13 (9–15) | 10 (6–14) | 13 (7–15)”

Table 1Find in source

“Kogelo | 22 (41%) | 21 (40%) | 24 (43%) | 19 (35%) | 19 (35%) | 20 (37%)”

Table 1Find in source

The study protocol was approved by the Kenya Medical Research Institute (SERU number 4413), US CDC, and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. Written informed consent was obtained from parents/guardians. Regulatory review by the Kenya Pharmacy and Poisons Board is noted.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study reports explicit ethical approvals from named institutional review boards and describes obtaining written informed consent from parents or guardians.

Evidence

“The study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards of the Kenya Medical Research Institute (Scientific and Ethics Research Unit; number 4413), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, with regulatory review by the Kenya Pharmacy and Poisons Board (ECCT/22/05/03).”

Methods ¶4Find in source

“Parents or guardians provided written informed consent for their child’s participation.”

Methods ¶3Find in source

Methods ¶4Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals are adequately reported: named IRBs, informed consent, and regulatory compliance.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“Parents or guardians provided written informed consent for their child’s participation.”

MethodsFind in source

“regulatory review by the Kenya Pharmacy and Poisons Board (ECCT/22/05/03)”

MethodsFind in source

L9LS is identified as a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody produced at the Vaccine Research Center, NIAID, with concentration 150 mg/mL and dosing regimen. Statistical software R version 4.5.0 is named. Other resource categories are not applicable to this clinical trial.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

The key investigational product, L9LS, is adequately identified with its source and concentration. Software used for statistical analysis is also identified.

Evidence

“L9LS is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody produced in a recombinant Chinese hamster ovary cell line. , The Vaccine Production Program (Vaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID], National Institutes of Health [NIH], Bethesda, MD, USA) developed the manufacturing processes for L9LS and then transferred them to the Vaccine Clinical Materials Program for Good Manufacturing Practice-compliant production. L9LS was supplied at a concentration of 150 mg/mL, with 2·2 mL per vial.”

Methods ¶1Find in source

“R statistical software (version 4.5.0) was used for all analyses.”

Statistical analysis ¶5Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Key resources (investigational product L9LS and software) are adequately identified.

Evidence

“L9LS is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody produced in a recombinant Chinese hamster ovary cell line.”

MethodsFind in source

“R statistical software (version 4.5.0) was used for all analyses.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Statistical tests like Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan–Meier estimates are named. Exact p-values are reported, along with effect sizes (protective efficacy) and 95% confidence intervals. Statistical software (R version 4.5.0) is identified. Data presentation in tables includes per-group Ns, and figures use shaded areas for 95% CIs. The primary analysis was modified intention-to-treat, and a sensitivity per-protocol analysis was also performed. Mathematical plausibility checks were not performed due to the nature of the reported statistics (Cox models, Kaplan-Meier) and large sample sizes.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study names statistical tests, reports exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals, and identifies the software used. Data presentation includes per-group Ns and error bars are defined.

Evidence

“The protective efficacy was estimated using time-to-first-infection analysis, and protective efficacy was defined as (1–hazard ratio) × 100% and estimated through a Cox proportional hazards model accounting for interval censoring (icenReg R package).”

Statistical analysis ¶3Find in source

“In part 2, 70 (66%) of 106 children in the two-dose L9LS group had at least one P falciparum infection during the 12-month follow-up versus 91 (83%) of 110 children in the placebo group (protective efficacy 42·7%, 95% CI 22·5–57·7; p=0·0003).”

AbstractFind in source

“R statistical software (version 4.5.0) was used for all analyses.”

Statistical analysis ¶5Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical analysis is well reported with named tests, effect sizes with CIs, exact p-values, and software identification.

Evidence

“protective efficacy was defined as (1–hazard ratio) × 100% and estimated through a Cox proportional hazards model accounting for interval censoring”

Statistical analysisFind in source

paraphrase[Results, paragraph 2]

“protective efficacy of two doses of L9LS against P falciparum infection by blood smear at 12 months... was 42·7% (95% CI 22·5–57·7; p=0·0003)”

“protective efficacy 45·9% [95% CI 26·5–60·1]; p=0·0001”

Results ¶3Find in source

The data availability statement indicates that anonymized data will be deposited in a secure, access-controlled institutional repository and access will be granted via corresponding authors and ethics committee approval. While this is a legitimate approach for sensitive human data, it does not specify a public repository or accession numbers for any non-identifiable data that could be openly shared. No code sharing is mentioned.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositINADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 70% conf

A data availability statement is present, but it describes a managed access process without specifying a public repository or accession numbers for non-identifiable data.

Evidence

“Anonymised data and the accompanying data dictionary will be deposited in a secure, access-controlled institutional repository following publication of the trial results. Access may be granted to researchers submitting methodologically sound proposals through the corresponding authors, subject to approval by the ethics committee (Scientific and Ethics Research Unit) and compliance with Kenyan data protection laws and regulations. Data access will require a formal data use agreement.”

Data availabilityFind in source

absence[Absence]

No public repository or accession numbers are provided for non-identifiable data.

absence[Absence]

No mention of custom code sharing.

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Data availability is described with a plan for managed access; code sharing is not applicable.

Evidence

“Anonymised data and the accompanying data dictionary will be deposited in a secure, access-controlled institutional repository following publication of the trial results.”

Data availabilityFind in source

“Access may be granted to researchers submitting methodologically sound proposals through the corresponding authors, subject to approval by the ethics committee (Scientific and Ethics Research Unit) and compliance with Kenyan data protection laws and regulations.”

Data availabilityFind in source

The clinical trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05400655). The methods section provides sufficient detail for replication, including procedures, dosing regimens, and follow-up schedules. Limitations of the study are explicitly discussed. Conclusions are appropriately cautious, acknowledging the need for higher doses and further research. Funding sources and conflicts of interest are declared.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study is registered, discusses limitations, and provides funding and conflict of interest statements. Methods are detailed enough for replication, and conclusions are proportional to the evidence.

Evidence

“This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (http://ClinicalTrials.gov) ( NCT05400655 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05400655) ) and is complete.”

AbstractFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 7]

“This study has limitations. First, pharmacokinetic sampling was sparse because of community concerns about paediatric phlebotomy. Second, the narrow range of L9LS doses in part 2 (due to bodyweight-tiered dosing) limited exploration of dose–efficacy relations. Ongoing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling with data from multiple L9LS trials in various transmission settings will further refine dosing regimens across age groups. Third, the study was done within a single area where P falciparum transmission is intense and perennial. It will be of interest in future studies to investigate L9LS in areas of low and moderate perennial transmission. Fourth, all participants received dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine before L9LS or placebo administration to clear possible P falciparum infection so that the primary efficacy endpoint of infection could be assessed. Consequently, this trial could not assess whether pretreatment with dihydroartemisinin–piperaquine affected efficacy estimates of L9LS. Finally, this trial included healthy children only.”

“Funding Gates Foundation.”

FundingFind in source

“SCM has a contract with NIAID. RAS has a patent issued for L9LS. All other authors declare no competing interests.”

Declaration of interestsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Reporting is transparent: methods are detailed, trial is registered, all outcomes reported, limitations discussed, conclusions proportional, and funding/COI stated.

Evidence

paraphrase[Abstract, Methods]

“This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (http://ClinicalTrials.gov) ( NCT05400655 )”

“This study has limitations. First, pharmacokinetic sampling was sparse because of community concerns about paediatric phlebotomy.”

Discussion ¶4Find in source

paraphrase[Acknowledgments, Declaration of interests]

“This trial was funded by a grant from the Gates Foundation (INV-035091)... Declaration of interests: SCM has a contract with NIAID. RAS has a patent issued for L9LS. All other authors declare no competing interests.”

Registered (6 IDs: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

None found

References 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 30 references by DOI: 1 verified — 29 no DOI (shown, not verified).

7 data/code links checked; 7 live.

Copyediting

17 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 17 minor suggestions below.

17 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity, typo.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

In post-publication audit, the paper is robust overall but has minor reporting gaps that an informed reader should weigh: the data are not openly accessible, no analysis code is available, and the Results section lacks figure/table callouts for many findings. A correction could address the missing references and typo; the managed-access data plan is acceptable but not ideal. The paper's conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.

1.
HIGHdata code
Consider depositing de-identified data in a named public repository (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov results database, Dryad, or Zenodo) and provide an accession number; if not possible, at least mention the specific institutional repository where data will be held.
The current managed-access plan lacks a named repository, which limits reproducibility and reader confidence.
2.
HIGHdata code
Add a statement about availability of analysis code (e.g., R scripts) for the primary analyses, even if only upon request, or state that no custom code was used.
The absence of any code sharing mention is a gap for a study that used custom R code for primary analyses.
3.
HIGHcopyedit
Add missing figure/table references in the Results section for all instances where parentheses are empty (e.g., after '()' or '( )') – 13 instances identified by the copyedit pass.
Missing callouts impair the reader's ability to locate supporting data; a correction is warranted.
4.
HIGHcopyedit
Correct the typo in Figure 1 legend: change 'chidren' to 'children'.
Typographical error in a published figure legend should be corrected via erratum.
5.
MEDIUMreporting
Explicitly state adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines in the Methods or Discussion, and provide a completed CONSORT checklist as supplementary material.
While the paper includes a flow diagram, reporting guideline adherence is not mentioned, which is a minor transparency gap.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide a direct link to the full study protocol in the supplementary material or a repository, instead of referencing only page numbers.
Page numbers are less accessible than a URL; a direct link improves transparency.
7.
MEDIUMstatistics
Describe the testing of the proportional hazards assumption for the Cox model, especially given the interval censoring approach.
The assumption is not explicitly discussed, which is a minor omission for a primary analysis method.
8.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Standardize the presentation of the ClinicalTrials.gov link in the Abstract: use just the NCT number with a hyperlink, removing the redundant URL display.
Current formatting is cluttered and inconsistent with typical journal style.
9.
LOWcopyedit
Ensure consistent hyphenation of 'two-dose' and 'one-dose' throughout the manuscript.
Minor inconsistency in hyphenation; trivial to fix in a correction.

Full text (59,937 chars)Analyzed: Aug 10, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody L9LS for malaria prevention in children exposed to perennial malaria transmission in Kenya: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1016/s0140-6736(26)00258-8

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/c2a9caeb-1e90-4128-b54a-037a6f698b00" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/c2a9caeb-1e90-4128-b54a-037a6f698b00/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 4 high issues for “Safety and efficacy of the monoclonal antibody L9LS for malaria prevention in children exposed to perennial malaria transmission in Kenya: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

44cf66236b743587df7d33753d0d580361d478ad98a64c376a704b44ab2d5041

Verify via API

Issued Aug 10, 2026Engine 7.29.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

4.25 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run on this paper: the pass that reads its reported means did not complete. No reported mean was checked for arithmetic impossibility.

Biggest issues

01Other integrity concern
mediumAuthenticityreviewer-assessedFull detail
Trial NCT07082205 was first submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov on 2025-06-24, after the registered study start date of 2025-05-02. Retrospective registration means the protocol and outcomes were not on the public record before the study ran, which is what prospective registration exists to establish.
NCT07082205
reviewer’s wording

Findings by category

Numerical inconsistencies

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

1 finding · worst low

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

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

Data authenticity concerns

1 finding · worst medium

Other integrity concernAssessed

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting gaps

1 finding · worst medium

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Evidence

“Phase 1 and 2 field trials in Africa have shown that CIS43LS and L9LS are safe and highly efficacious against P falciparum infection.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

Introduction ¶3Find in source

Introduction ¶5Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes the scientific premise by citing prior work on malaria burden, vaccines, and monoclonal antibodies, and provides a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“Phase 1 and 2 field trials in Africa have shown that CIS43LS and L9LS are safe and highly efficacious against P falciparum infection.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“This trial was designed to address several questions in the development of monoclonal antibodies for key at-risk populations: first, whether monoclonal antibodies can maintain efficacy in areas of intense perennial transmission... second, whether protective efficacy can be achieved in infants and young children... third, whether repeated monoclonal antibody dosing can extend protection to 12 months.”

Introduction ¶4Find in source

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study design is robust for a clinical trial, detailing randomization, blinding, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. A power analysis is reported, and appropriate controls are used.

Evidence

“In parts 1a and 1b, within each age-dose cohort, participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to L9LS or placebo by use of permuted block randomisation in R with block sizes of four.”

Methods ¶1Find in source

“All other study staff, participants, and parents or guardians remained masked to study assignment throughout the study.”

Methods ¶2Find in source

Statistical analysis ¶1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study design is rigorously reported with adequate randomization, blinding, sample size justification, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“In part 2, randomisation was stratified according to participant age... by use of permuted block randomisation with block sizes of six and nine.”

“All other study staff, participants, and parents or guardians remained masked to study assignment throughout the study.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical analysis]

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study adequately reports demographic characteristics of the human participants, including age, sex, and health status.

Evidence

“In part 2, 152 (47%) of 324 participants were male, 172 (53%) were female, 199 (61%) were enrolled at Siaya Hospital, and the remaining 125 (39%) were enrolled at Kogelo Dispensary ().”

Results ¶2Find in source

AbstractFind in source

Methods ¶2Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Biological variables (sex, age, weight, health status) are reported adequately for this human clinical trial.

Evidence

“Female | 29 (54%) | 27 (52%) | 27 (48%) | 28 (52%) | 34 (63%) | 27 (50%)”

Table 1Find in source

“Age, months | 37 (25–45) | 34 (27–49) | 31 (24–41) | 13 (9–15) | 10 (6–14) | 13 (7–15)”

Table 1Find in source

“Kogelo | 22 (41%) | 21 (40%) | 24 (43%) | 19 (35%) | 19 (35%) | 20 (37%)”

Table 1Find in source

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study reports explicit ethical approvals from named institutional review boards and describes obtaining written informed consent from parents or guardians.

Evidence

Methods ¶4Find in source

“Parents or guardians provided written informed consent for their child’s participation.”

Methods ¶3Find in source

Methods ¶4Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals are adequately reported: named IRBs, informed consent, and regulatory compliance.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“Parents or guardians provided written informed consent for their child’s participation.”

MethodsFind in source

“regulatory review by the Kenya Pharmacy and Poisons Board (ECCT/22/05/03)”

MethodsFind in source

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

The key investigational product, L9LS, is adequately identified with its source and concentration. Software used for statistical analysis is also identified.

Evidence

Methods ¶1Find in source

“R statistical software (version 4.5.0) was used for all analyses.”

Statistical analysis ¶5Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Key resources (investigational product L9LS and software) are adequately identified.

Evidence

“L9LS is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody produced in a recombinant Chinese hamster ovary cell line.”

MethodsFind in source

“R statistical software (version 4.5.0) was used for all analyses.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Evidence

Statistical analysis ¶3Find in source

AbstractFind in source

“R statistical software (version 4.5.0) was used for all analyses.”

Statistical analysis ¶5Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical analysis is well reported with named tests, effect sizes with CIs, exact p-values, and software identification.

Evidence

“protective efficacy was defined as (1–hazard ratio) × 100% and estimated through a Cox proportional hazards model accounting for interval censoring”

Statistical analysisFind in source

paraphrase[Results, paragraph 2]

“protective efficacy of two doses of L9LS against P falciparum infection by blood smear at 12 months... was 42·7% (95% CI 22·5–57·7; p=0·0003)”

“protective efficacy 45·9% [95% CI 26·5–60·1]; p=0·0001”

Results ¶3Find in source

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositINADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 70% conf

A data availability statement is present, but it describes a managed access process without specifying a public repository or accession numbers for non-identifiable data.

Evidence

Data availabilityFind in source

absence[Absence]

No public repository or accession numbers are provided for non-identifiable data.

absence[Absence]

No mention of custom code sharing.

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

Data availability is described with a plan for managed access; code sharing is not applicable.

Evidence

“Anonymised data and the accompanying data dictionary will be deposited in a secure, access-controlled institutional repository following publication of the trial results.”

Data availabilityFind in source

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Evidence

“This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (http://ClinicalTrials.gov) ( NCT05400655 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05400655) ) and is complete.”

AbstractFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 7]

“Funding Gates Foundation.”

FundingFind in source

“SCM has a contract with NIAID. RAS has a patent issued for L9LS. All other authors declare no competing interests.”

Declaration of interestsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Reporting is transparent: methods are detailed, trial is registered, all outcomes reported, limitations discussed, conclusions proportional, and funding/COI stated.

Evidence

paraphrase[Abstract, Methods]

“This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (http://ClinicalTrials.gov) ( NCT05400655 )”

“This study has limitations. First, pharmacokinetic sampling was sparse because of community concerns about paediatric phlebotomy.”

Discussion ¶4Find in source

paraphrase[Acknowledgments, Declaration of interests]

Registered (6 IDs: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

Broken references and links

None found

References 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 30 references by DOI: 1 verified — 29 no DOI (shown, not verified).

7 data/code links checked; 7 live.

Copyediting

17 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 17 minor suggestions below.

17 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity, typo.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHdata code
Consider depositing de-identified data in a named public repository (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov results database, Dryad, or Zenodo) and provide an accession number; if not possible, at least mention the specific institutional repository where data will be held.
The current managed-access plan lacks a named repository, which limits reproducibility and reader confidence.
2.
HIGHdata code
Add a statement about availability of analysis code (e.g., R scripts) for the primary analyses, even if only upon request, or state that no custom code was used.
The absence of any code sharing mention is a gap for a study that used custom R code for primary analyses.
3.
HIGHcopyedit
Add missing figure/table references in the Results section for all instances where parentheses are empty (e.g., after '()' or '( )') – 13 instances identified by the copyedit pass.
Missing callouts impair the reader's ability to locate supporting data; a correction is warranted.
4.
HIGHcopyedit
Correct the typo in Figure 1 legend: change 'chidren' to 'children'.
Typographical error in a published figure legend should be corrected via erratum.
5.
MEDIUMreporting
Explicitly state adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines in the Methods or Discussion, and provide a completed CONSORT checklist as supplementary material.
While the paper includes a flow diagram, reporting guideline adherence is not mentioned, which is a minor transparency gap.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide a direct link to the full study protocol in the supplementary material or a repository, instead of referencing only page numbers.
Page numbers are less accessible than a URL; a direct link improves transparency.
7.
MEDIUMstatistics
Describe the testing of the proportional hazards assumption for the Cox model, especially given the interval censoring approach.
The assumption is not explicitly discussed, which is a minor omission for a primary analysis method.
8.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Standardize the presentation of the ClinicalTrials.gov link in the Abstract: use just the NCT number with a hyperlink, removing the redundant URL display.
Current formatting is cluttered and inconsistent with typical journal style.
9.
LOWcopyedit
Ensure consistent hyphenation of 'two-dose' and 'one-dose' throughout the manuscript.
Minor inconsistency in hyphenation; trivial to fix in a correction.

Full text (59,937 chars)Analyzed: Aug 10, 2026