Gotistobart or docetaxel in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer: stage 1 of the randomized phase 3 PRESERVE-003 trial.
Cho BC, Balaraman R, Chen HJ, Yu X, Fawole A, Liu ZG, Zhang J, Wu L, Yang B, Leddon JL, Hamm J, Huang Y, Wu L, Pan P, Singh P, Beardsley A, Kayali F, Davarifar A, Lee KH, Park KU, Lee Y, Li L, Wang X, Sun M, Yu Y, Jain V, Shpyro S, Wang Q, Wenger M, Şahin U, Efuni S, Song S, He K, Zheng P, Liu Y, He K, Li T, Socinski MA, Wu YL
- DOI
- 10.1038/s41591-026-04323-8
- Record issued
- 2026-08-15
- Engine
- 7.39.0
- Exported
- 2026-09-22
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/c70ea136-ff0e-4e76-9ae6-19369e956ccb is authoritative.
How this rating was calculated
- StatisticsImpossible or misreported statistic ×2−2★
- IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
- ClaimsOverstated claim−0.5★
- ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★
A demonstrable critical failure caps the rating at the minimum, regardless of the deductions above.
- 01Printed percentage does not match its own countdemonstrable
63.1% is unattainable for n=45 (nearest: 62.2, 64.4%)
“63.1 (46.9 to 75.5)”
Table 2Find in source - 02Printed percentage does not match its own countdemonstrable
30.3% is unattainable for n=42 (nearest: 28.6, 31%)
“30.3 (16.2 to 45.6)”
Table 2Find in source - 03Conclusion reaches beyond the evidence
The results suggest gotistobart may offer a chemotherapy-free treatment option for sqNSCLC.
“the results from the nonpivotal stage 1 of this phase 3 randomized study suggest that gotistobart may offer a chemotherapy-free treatment option to transform the treatment paradigm of sqNSCLC”
DiscussionFind in source
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.
The paper is a well-conducted and transparently reported phase 3 trial stage 1, with strong reporting of study design, ethics, demographics, and statistical methods. The main weakness is the vague data availability statement, which lacks a concrete access mechanism and timeframe. Minor copyedit issues and a slightly overstated conclusion in the abstract are also noted.
This is an interventional clinical trial; both reviewers agreed on study type. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were not applicable (e.g., power analysis, animal housing, cell line authentication) due to the clinical nature of the study. The statistics verification component checked only a subset of reported tests (4 tests, 2 consistent, 2 inconsistent but unspecified), so the statistical analysis is not fully verified; the absence of a demonstrable error supports the pass status.
Numerical inconsistencies
2 findings · worst criticalValues 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
- Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed
Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 via agent-written checks. 2 reported summary statistics mathematically impossible for the stated N (PERCENT).
- PERCENT63.1% is unattainable for n=45 (nearest: 62.2, 64.4%)
“63.1 (46.9 to 75.5)”
Table 2Find in source - PERCENT30.3% is unattainable for n=42 (nearest: 28.6, 31%)
“30.3 (16.2 to 45.6)”
Table 2Find in source
- CONSISTENTreported p = .010 · recomputed p = .012Reviewers 1, 2Recompute the two-sided p-value for the OS hazard ratio from the reported HR and 95% CI.
“hazard ratio (HR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.84, two-sided P value = 0.0102”
Taken as given: The HR is a ratio, so log=1.; The CI is a 95% confidence interval.; The p-value is two-sided.Method: Used pCI function to derive p-value from HR and 95% CI assuming a normal approximation for the log hazard ratio.How we recomputed it: pCI(0.46, 0.25, 0.84, 1) - CONSISTENTreported p = .140 · recomputed p = .142Reviewer 2Recompute the p-value for the PFS hazard ratio from the reported HR and 95% CI.
“HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.13”
Taken as given: The HR is a ratio estimate with a 95% CI.; The CI is two-sided at 95%.; The p-value is two-sided.Method: Used pCI to derive the two-sided p-value from the HR and its 95% CI on the log scale.How we recomputed it: pCI(0.69, 0.42, 1.13, 1)
- lowinternal contradictionThe safety analysis population for docetaxel is reported as n=41 in Table 3, while 42 were randomized. This is explained by one patient not receiving treatment, but the discrepancy is not explicitly noted in the table.
“Docetaxel ( n = 41)”
Table 3Find in source - lowinternal contradictionThe abstract states 'grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events in 42% and 49%' while the results table reports 42.2% and 48.8% for gotistobart and docetaxel, respectively. This is a minor rounding discrepancy.
“grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events in 42% and 49% of patients receiving gotistobart and docetaxel, respectively.”
Table 3Find in source
Overstated conclusions
2 findings · worst mediumConclusions 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 overstated beyond the evidenceAssessed
- Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed
7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated), 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain).
- overstatedReviewer 2The results suggest gotistobart may offer a chemotherapy-free treatment option for sqNSCLC.The claim is based on stage 1 exploratory results and is appropriately cautious, but the word 'transform' may be overreaching given the nonpivotal nature.Evidence: Stage 1 results
“the results from the nonpivotal stage 1 of this phase 3 randomized study suggest that gotistobart may offer a chemotherapy-free treatment option to transform the treatment paradigm of sqNSCLC”
DiscussionFind in source - partialReviewer 2The OS benefit is due to gotistobart's mechanism of selectively depleting Tregs in the tumor microenvironment.The mechanism is supported by preclinical data, but the clinical data do not directly demonstrate the mechanism in patients; the claim is inferential.Evidence: Preclinical studies and clinical efficacy data
“By selectively depleting the T reg population, the cellular driver of multiple suppression pathways within the tumor microenvironment, gotistobart offers a more profound restoration of antitumor immunity than CTLA-4 receptor blockade alone.”
DiscussionFind in source - supportedReviewer 1Gotistobart demonstrated a clinically meaningful survival benefit with a 54% reduction in the risk of mortality compared to docetaxel in patients with sqNSCLC.The claim is supported by the reported HR of 0.46 (95% CI 0.25-0.84) and the OS data.Evidence: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.84, median OS not reached vs 10.0 months.
“gotistobart demonstrated a clinically meaningful survival benefit (primary endpoint), with a 54% reduction in the risk of mortality compared to docetaxel in patients with sqNSCLC.”
AbstractFind in source - supportedReviewer 1Gotistobart monotherapy can provide clinically meaningful benefit for patients with PD-(L)1-resistant and chemotherapy-resistant metastatic sqNSCLC.The claim is supported by the OS, PFS, and ORR results, though the study is exploratory and not powered.Evidence: OS HR 0.46, ORR 20% vs 4.8%, DoR 11.0 vs 3.8 months.
“Stage 1 results suggest that gotistobart monotherapy can provide clinically meaningful benefit for patients with programmed cell death protein/programmed death ligand 1-resistant and chemotherapy-resistant metastatic sqNSCLC.”
AbstractFind in source - supportedReviewer 1The safety profile of gotistobart is manageable.The claim is supported by the reported safety data, including grade ≥3 TRAE rates of 42.2% vs 48.8% and no fatal TRAEs.Evidence: Grade ≥3 TRAEs 42.2% vs 48.8%, no fatal TRAEs.
“Safety was manageable, with grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events in 42% and 49% of patients receiving gotistobart and docetaxel, respectively.”
ResultsFind in source - supportedReviewer 2Gotistobart demonstrated a clinically meaningful survival benefit compared to docetaxel in patients with sqNSCLC.The claim is supported by the reported OS HR of 0.46 with 95% CI 0.25-0.84 and nominal p=0.0102, though the p-value is nominal and the stage is exploratory.Evidence: OS HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.84, p=0.0102
“median overall survival was not reached with gotistobart (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.3 to not evaluable) versus 10.0 months (95% CI 6.2 to 11.9 months) with docetaxel (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.84, nominal two-sided P = 0.0102)”
AbstractFind in source - supportedReviewer 2Gotistobart has a manageable safety profile.The claim is supported by the reported safety data, including grade ≥3 TRAE rates of 42.2% vs 48.8% and no fatal TRAEs.Evidence: Safety data in Table 3 and text
“Safety was manageable, with grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events in 42% and 49% of patients receiving gotistobart and docetaxel, respectively.”
ResultsFind in source
Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.
- ADEQUATESurrogate endpointThe primary endpoint is overall survival (OS), a hard clinical outcome. The efficacy claim is based on OS, not a surrogate. Secondary endpoints include PFS and ORR, but the primary claim is OS.
“The primary endpoint of PRESERVE-003 is overall survival (OS)... median OS was not reached with gotistobart (95% CI 9.3 to not evaluable) versus 10.0 months (95% CI 6.2 to 11.9 months) with docetaxel (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.84, nominal two-sided P = 0.0102).”
- ADEQUATEEffect sizeThe effect size is a 54% reduction in risk of death (HR 0.46) and a doubling of 12-month OS rate (63.1% vs 30.3%). This is anchored to clinical meaningfulness as a survival benefit in a poor-prognosis population.
“gotistobart demonstrated a clinically meaningful survival benefit (primary endpoint), with a 54% reduction in the risk of mortality compared to docetaxel... At 12 months, the OS rate doubled with gotistobart (63.1%; 95% CI 46.9% to 75.5%) compared to docetaxel (30.3%; 95% CI 16.2% to 45.6%).”
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 multiple references on the poor prognosis of sqNSCLC and the limited efficacy of docetaxel, and describes the mechanism of gotistobart with preclinical and phase 1/2 data. The rationale for the study is logically linked to the need for better treatments in this population. Limitations of prior research are implicitly addressed by noting the failures of other agents and the unique mechanism of gotistobart.
“Once the disease progresses, treatment options are limited and have remained relatively unchanged over time”
“Here we report the efficacy and safety from the nonpivotal stage 1, with a focus on patients with metastatic sqNSCLC.”
“Multiple studies assessing novel therapeutic approaches in the post-platinum, post-PD-(L)1 inhibitor setting have failed to demonstrate an OS benefit over docetaxel”
Randomization was performed using an Interactive Web Response System with stratification factors. The study is open-label, which is stated and acknowledged as a limitation. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are detailed. The analysis populations (efficacy vs safety) are defined. Power analysis is not applicable as stage 1 is exploratory and not powered.
“Eligible patients were randomized using the Interactive Web Response System to receive gotistobart or docetaxel treatment stratified by factors that could impact prognosis: histology (squamous versus nonsquamous (stage 1 only)), presence of brain metastases (yes or no), ECOG PS score (0 versus 1) and region (USA and ex-USA).”
“The use of investigator assessment rather than blinded, independent central reviewer assessment of PFS and ORR may be limited by the open-label design.”
“Stage 1 is exploratory and was not powered to demonstrate efficacy.”
“Eligible patients were randomized using the Interactive Web Response System to receive gotistobart or docetaxel treatment stratified by factors that could impact prognosis”
“randomized, open-label, active-controlled phase 3 trial”
“Stage 1 is exploratory and was not powered to demonstrate efficacy.”
The paper reports sex, age, race, region, ECOG PS, smoking status, and disease characteristics in Table 1. Both sexes are enrolled, so sex_justified is not applicable. Demographics are adequately reported.
“Median age (range) in years | 64.0 (39–86) | 68.5 (43–84) | | Sex, no. (%) | Male | 36 (80.0) | 38 (90.5) | | Female | 9 (20.0) | 4 (9.5)”
“Race, no. (%) | Asian | 32 (71.1) | 30 (71.4) | | White | 11 (24.4) | 11 (26.2)”
“Sex, no. (%) | Male | 36 (80.0) | 38 (90.5) | | Female | 9 (20.0) | 4 (9.5)”
“Median age (range) in years | 64.0 (39–86) | 68.5 (43–84)”
“Race, no. (%) | Asian | 32 (71.1) | 30 (71.4)”
The methods state that the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and ICH-GCP, and that all procedures were approved by the institutional review board/ethics committee, with the central Western IRB providing approval in the USA. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Regulatory compliance is explicitly stated.
“The central Western Institutional Review Board provided approval in the USA.”
“All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment.”
“The study was conducted in accordance with local and national regulations, as well as consensus ethical principles derived from the Declaration of Helsinki, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences International Ethical Guidelines and the International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice Guidelines.”
“All study procedures, protocols and other relevant documents were approved by the institutional review board/ethics committee and national regulatory authority.”
“All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment.”
“The study was conducted in accordance with local and national regulations, as well as consensus ethical principles derived from the Declaration of Helsinki”
Gotistobart and docetaxel are named with doses and schedules. The sponsor and supplier are identified. Statistical software (SAS version 9.4) is identified. No other biological/chemical resources are used, so other sub-criteria are not applicable.
“In stage 1A, gotistobart was administered at 3 mg kg −1 or 6 mg kg −1 (with two loading doses of 10 mg kg −1 ), and in stage 1B, gotistobart was administered at 6 mg kg −1 (with two loading doses of 10 mg kg −1 ). Docetaxel was dosed at 75 mg m − 2 .”
“Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS (version 9.4 or later).”
“Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS (version 9.4 or later).”
The paper names the statistical tests (Cox proportional-hazards model, Kaplan-Meier, exact binomial CI). Exact p-values are reported (e.g., P = 0.0102). Effect sizes with confidence intervals are reported. Statistical software is identified. Data presentation includes Kaplan-Meier curves and tables with per-group n. Mathematical plausibility checks are not applicable due to large N and continuous outcomes.
“HRs and associated 95% CIs were calculated from a Cox proportional-hazards model.”
“hazard ratio (HR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.84, two-sided P value = 0.0102”
“HR (95% CI) | 0.46 (0.25 to 0.84)”
“hazard ratio (HR) 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.84, two-sided P value = 0.0102”
“HR (95% CI) | 0.46 (0.25 to 0.84)”
“OS curves were generated using Kaplan–Meier estimates. HRs and associated 95% CIs were calculated from a Cox proportional-hazards model.”
The data availability statement says data will be made available to qualified researchers upon request, but does not specify a platform or data access committee, and the timeframe is vague ('within 12 months of the study completion'). This is reported_but_inadequate. No code is shared, but code_sharing is not applicable as no bespoke code is mentioned.
“Upon completion of this clinical trial, the data that support the findings of this study will be made available to qualified researchers. Proposals should be directed to pzheng@oncoc4.com. To gain access, data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.”
“Upon completion of this clinical trial, the data that support the findings of this study will be made available to qualified researchers. Proposals should be directed to pzheng@oncoc4.com.”
The trial is registered (NCT05671510). Limitations are discussed, including the exploratory nature and overrepresentation of Asian patients. Conclusions are proportional, acknowledging the nonpivotal stage. Funding and competing interests are disclosed. Reporting guideline is not explicitly mentioned, but the paper follows CONSORT-like structure.
“PRESERVE-003 (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05671510 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05671510) ; date of registration: 4 January 2023)”
“A limitation of the study is that the Asian patient population was overrepresented, and Hispanic and Black/African American patients were underrepresented in stage 1.”
“The PRESERVE-003 ( NCT05671510 ) study is sponsored by OncoC4 Inc. and conducted in collaboration with BioNTech.”
“PRESERVE-003 (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05671510”
“A limitation of the study is that the Asian patient population was overrepresented, and Hispanic and Black/African American patients were underrepresented in stage 1.”
“The PRESERVE-003 ( NCT05671510 ) study is sponsored by OncoC4 Inc. and conducted in collaboration with BioNTech.”
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 35 references by DOI: 31 verified — 4 no DOI (shown, not verified).
- NO DOINon-Small Cell Lung CancerNo DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
- NO DOIFirst-in-human study of the first acid pH-sensitive and recycling CTLA-4 antibody that preserves the immune tolerance checkpoint to avoid immunotherapy-related adverse events in cancer patientsNo DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
- NO DOIPharmacokinetics of first and repeated dosing of non-irAE-inducing anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody ONC-392 in advanced cancer patientsNo DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
- NO DOISingle-agent safety and activities of target-preserving anti-CTLA-4 antibody gotistobart (ONC-392/BNT316) in PD-(L)1 resistant metastatic NSCLC and population PK analysis in patients with solid tumorsNo DOI in the reference — shown for manual review; not independently verifiable (not a fabrication signal).
2 data/code links checked; 2 live.
- datahttps://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=NCT05671510LIVEHTTP 200Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
- datahttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05671510LIVEHTTP 200Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
Copyediting
5 minorWording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.
No major wording or formatting errors. 5 minor suggestions below.
5 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity.
- MINORconsistencyAbstract“gotistobart (6 mg kg −1 with two 10 mg kg −1 loading doses every 3 weeks ( N = 45))”→ Ensure consistent use of superscripts and spacing in dose units.Minor formatting inconsistency.
- MINORclarityResults, Patient disposition“Three hundred patients were screened and 217 patients were enrolled in stage 1 of the study, of which 91 patients had sqNSCLC and 126 had non-sqNSCLC (Fig. ).”→ Add a period after 'Fig.' or use a proper citation format.Incomplete figure citation.
- MINORconsistencyAbstract“grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events in 42% and 49%”→ Consider specifying the treatment arms for clarity.The percentages are clear from context but could be explicit.
- MINORclarityResults, Patient disposition“Four of the 91 patients with sqNSCLC were randomized to the gotistobart 3 mg kg −1 arm before its termination”→ Clarify that these four are excluded from the analysis.The sentence is clear but could be more explicit.
- MINORconsistencyTable 3“Docetaxel ( n = 41)”→ Ensure the n is consistent with the text (42 randomized, 41 treated).The difference is explained by one patient not receiving treatment, but it may be worth a footnote.
The published work is robust in its reporting and methodology, with only minor gaps. An informed reader should weigh the vague data availability statement and the minor internal inconsistencies (e.g., docetaxel safety population n=41 vs 42 randomized, rounding of adverse event percentages) as low-severity issues that do not undermine the main conclusions. The exploratory nature of stage 1 and the open-label design are appropriately acknowledged.
- 1.CRITICALstatisticsCorrect or explain the statistically impossible value: PERCENT: 63.1% is unattainable for n=45 (nearest: 62.2, 64.4%)Demonstrable critical failure — blocks the verdict from passing.
- 2.CRITICALstatisticsCorrect or explain the statistically impossible value: PERCENT: 30.3% is unattainable for n=42 (nearest: 28.6, 31%)Demonstrable critical failure — blocks the verdict from passing.
- 3.HIGHdata codeIn the Data availability section, specify a concrete access mechanism (e.g., a data access committee or a platform like Vivli) and a clear timeframe for data availability, rather than a vague 'upon request' statement.The current statement is reported but inadequate, and a concrete mechanism would improve reproducibility and transparency.
- 4.HIGHreportingAdd an explicit statement about adherence to a reporting guideline (e.g., CONSORT) in the Methods or Reporting summary section.One reviewer noted the reporting guideline is not explicitly mentioned, and adding it would strengthen transparency.
- 5.HIGHreportingTemper the abstract claim that gotistobart 'may offer a chemotherapy-free treatment option' to reflect that these are exploratory stage 1 results and not definitive.The claim audit rated this as overstated given the nonpivotal nature of the stage; over-claiming is a common reviewer objection.
- 6.MEDIUMcopyeditIn Results, Patient disposition, fix the incomplete figure citation 'Fig.' by adding a period or proper citation format.Incomplete figure citation is a minor copyedit issue that should be corrected.
- 7.MEDIUMcopyeditIn Table 3, add a footnote explaining that the docetaxel safety population is n=41 because one patient randomized did not receive treatment.The discrepancy between 42 randomized and 41 treated is explained in text but not in the table, which could confuse readers.
- 8.MEDIUMcopyeditIn the Abstract, clarify that the 'grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events in 42% and 49%' refer to gotistobart and docetaxel arms, respectively.The percentages are clear from context but making them explicit improves clarity.
- 9.MEDIUMcopyeditEnsure consistent use of superscripts and spacing in dose units throughout the manuscript, particularly in the Abstract.Minor formatting inconsistency in dose units could be distracting.
- 10.MEDIUMreportingIn the Discussion, explicitly discuss the potential impact of the open-label design on the assessment of PFS and ORR, even though it is mentioned.One reviewer suggested making this limitation more explicit to aid reader interpretation.
- 11.MEDIUMreportingConsider reporting the number of patients screened vs. enrolled in a CONSORT flow diagram to improve transparency.A flow diagram would enhance transparency of patient disposition.
- 12.LOWdata codeIf any custom code was used for statistical analyses, provide it in a public repository with a DOI to enhance reproducibility.Sharing code would improve reproducibility, though no bespoke code is mentioned.
- 13.LOWreportingClarify the role of the Data Monitoring Committee and how its recommendations were implemented in the manuscript.The DMC is mentioned but not detailed, and clarifying its role would improve transparency.
- 14.LOWreportingConsider reporting the number of patients with missing data for each endpoint to improve transparency.Missing data reporting would strengthen the statistical transparency.
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.