Transferrin ensures survival of ovarian carcinoma cells when apoptosis is induced by TNFalpha, FasL, TRAIL, or Myc.
Part of the results reproduced; minor but material deviations remained.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
- ✓No relevant deviation in data/preprocessing
- ✓No authors-side cause for any deviation
- ✓Any deviation was negligible
- 🔴Could not use the authors’ exact input data
- 🔴Reported values were only indirectly comparable
- 🟡Reported values were not (fully) derivable from the shared data
- 🟡The central claim did not (fully) hold under reproduction
- 🟡Overall, the reproduction showed a material discrepancy
▸Reproduction agent’s raw note
Fassl et al., Oncogene 2003;22(51):8343-55 (PMID 14614458), 'Transferrin ensures survival of ovarian carcinoma cells when apoptosis is induced by TNFalpha, FasL, TRAIL, or Myc.' This is a pure wet-lab cell-biology study of apoptosis and iron homeostasis in human ovarian adenocarcinoma N.1 cells and primary ovarian carcinoma cells. Confirmed via PubMed, Europe PMC (core record + MeSH) that it contains NO computational/bioinformatic pipeline, NO high-throughput data (no microarray, no sequencing, no gene-expression profiling), NO deposited datasets (no GEO/SRA/ENA/ArrayExpress/figshare/zenodo accession), NO data-availability statement, and NO code repository. All reported results derive from bench methods (Myc/ER activation, apoptosis induction with TNFalpha/FasL/TRAIL, serum deprivation, H-ferritin expression assays, deferoxamine iron chelation, holo- vs apo-transferrin supplementation, primary-cell confirmation). There are therefore zero pipeline-derived computational results in scope to reproduce. Recorded as a valid, well-founded drop per HARD RULE 6. No dataset profiling entries possible (no accessions). Not attempted: nothing computational exists to attempt.
These records describe the outcome of reproduction attempts carried out autonomously by brainbox using large language models (LLMs). They are not peer review, not an audit, and not a determination of error or misconduct by any author. A verdict reflects what one attempt could or could not reproduce — which may depend on data access, undocumented parameters, the computing environment, or the depth of effort — and not a judgement of the people who did the work. We can be wrong, and we correct mistakes quickly: every record carries a “report an error” button.
✎ I am an author of this paper
Updated or fixed a deposit, or is there an erratum? Ask us to re-run the metrics. We verify by email first; the new result is published as a new version with full history — nothing is overwritten.
Provenance — full disclosure
When this reproduction was carried out, which methodology version was used, and by whom — so the record can be audited and checked independently.
- Reproduced
- 2026-07-24
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-07-31no human curator yet
- Last updated
- 2026-07-31
Provisional, curator- or AI-assessed, and independently checkable. A reproduction outcome states what one attempt could reproduce — not a judgement of the authors.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
No individual results have been recorded for this entry yet.
Assessments & scoring basis
Each contributor’s verdict, the per-question basis, and the auditable, itemised worksheet behind it.
An automated assessment. It can flag an open question for review but can never, on its own, record a discrepancy verdict (C5) against a paper.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
Nothing computational exists to reproduce. Fassl et al. (Oncogene 2003, PMID 14614458) is a pure wet-lab apoptosis/iron-homeostasis study in N.1 ovarian carcinoma cells; ROOM_RESULT.json records claims: [], datasets: [], compute_ran=false and drops it as out_of_scope_wetlab_only_no_computational_pipeline. The blocker is on the data-availability side and is era-typical (2003, no deposition mandate) — not an authors' defect and not a methodological error of ours, so q5/q7 stay yellow rather than red per the fairness principle. Factually no deviation was observed (q3/q6 green) because no value was ever put side by side. Overall yellow: the drop is well-founded and correctly documented, but the study yields no reproduction evidence, so it cannot count as a green 1:1 result.
Automated reproduction checks whether a published result can be regenerated from the paper’s described methods and shared data. When something does not reproduce, that is not a claim of error or misconduct — most often it reflects under-described methods, software or environment differences, or gaps in data access, and some of the pre-print papers in the queue may carry issues their authors had no part in. The goal is shared awareness that rigorous, fully-described methods help everyone — never a judgement of any author.
Are you an author? We would genuinely like to hear from you — to clarify the record, add data or code, re-run the pipeline after an accession update, and publish your response right next to the assessment. Everything here is open and auditable.
🚩 Report an error in this record
Spotted something wrong — a verdict you’d contest, a data or value error, or a private detail that slipped through? Tell us, with a short justification. Authors and readers are equally welcome to write in; we review every report.
Prefer email, or the form below not working? Contact us at support@doesitreproduce.com.