Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (PREVENT-TAHA8).

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (PREVENT-TAHA8).
Item: Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (PREVENT-TAHA8).
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Attar A, Mirhosseini SA, Mathur A, Dowlut S, Monabati A, Kasaei M, Abtahi F, Kiwan Y, Vosough M, Azarpira N

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Prevention of acute myocardial infarction induced heart failure by intracoronary infusion of mesenchymal stem cells: phase 3 randomised clinical trial (PREVENT-TAHA8).”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★

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

Not verified in this report

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.

Problems surfaced1 type

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported Phase 3 randomized clinical trial of intracoronary Wharton's jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells for post-MI heart failure prevention. The manuscript demonstrates strong rigor across all eight dimensions, with clear randomization, blinding, sample size justification, ethical approvals, and data availability. Minor copyedit issues (typos and apparent formatting errors in Table 1 and a CI in the Discussion) do not undermine the scientific integrity but warrant correction.

Both reviewers independently scored all dimensions as 'pass' with high confidence, and their evidence was consistent; no divergence required reconciliation. The study type is interventional (randomized controlled trial). Non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded from scoring. The statistics verification covered only a subset of reported tests (7 with test statistics/df or effect estimates with CIs); other p-values were not machine-verified.

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

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 7 tests: 7 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 6 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The paper cites prior research including the BAMI trial and a meta-analysis, acknowledges limitations of previous studies (small sample sizes, surrogate endpoints, short follow-up), and builds a logical rationale for using clinical endpoints and Wharton's jelly-derived MSCs. The hypothesis follows from the cited evidence.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The introduction establishes a clear rationale for the trial, citing prior work and addressing limitations of previous studies.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“The BAMI trial, the largest phase 3 trial in this area, used total mortality as its primary endpoint but did not show a significant benefit, despite a significant reduction in hospital admissions for heart failure after intracoronary infusion of bone marrow derived mononuclear cells.”