AlphaPIX and betaPIX and their role in focal adhesion formation.
The main results reproduced, with only marginal, non-material deviations.
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
- ✓Reported values are derivable from the shared data
- ✓Any deviation was negligible
- ✓The central claim held under reproduction
- ✓Overall, the reproduction was clean
- 🔴Could not use the authors’ exact input data
- 🔴Reported values were only indirectly comparable
▸Reproduction agent’s raw note
DROP (non_pipeline) — re-verified on requeue. PMID 16337026 (Rosenberger G & Kutsche K, 'AlphaPIX and betaPIX and their role in focal adhesion formation', Eur J Cell Biol 2006, 85(3-4):265-274, DOI 10.1016/j.ejcb.2005.10.007) is a REVIEW / highlight article. Decisive primary-source evidence (NCBI E-utilities efetch of the MEDLINE record, retrieved 2026-06-22): NLM MANUALLY indexed PublicationType = Review (MeSH UI D016454); NumberOfReferences = 75 (MEDLINE records a reference count only for review-type articles); abstract is self-describing ('we highlight the recent findings ... and suggest models'); MeSH includes 'Models, Biological'; the record contains NO DataBank/AccessionNumber elements (no GEO/SRA/ENA/ArrayExpress/PRIDE/figshare/zenodo deposit); no PMCID; not open access. The article reports no primary data, ships no analysis code, and presents no pipeline-derived quantitative result that could be recomputed and compared — only conceptual model figures. There is therefore nothing in scope to reproduce; this was determined at the screening/scoping stage with ZERO compute (no SLURM job submitted, «our HPC» not contacted), the correct resource-respecting handling of a non-pipeline RU. NOT ATTEMPTED: any experimental results the review discusses belong to the cited primary papers (wet-lab cell biology / microscopy: focal-adhesion imaging, GEF activity assays) and are themselves out of scope for pipeline reproduction. No value fabricated; claims[] and datasets[] are empty by observation, not omission. Note vs prior run: this requeued re-run adds the authoritative MEDLINE Review publication-type tag and the absence-of-DataBank check as independent, machine-checkable confirmation that the original abstract-only drop was correct.
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.
Assessment versions
Every reproduction run is kept as an immutable version — anchored to the data as it stood, with a tamper-evident chain hash. A rerun (e.g. after an author updates a deposit) adds a new version; the previous one stays on record.
-
v1 current initial assessmentassessed: 2026-06-19 ⛓ e1c3bbcd28db
✎ 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
- 2026-06-22
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-19no human curator yet
- Last updated
- 2026-08-06
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.
Scope — pmid-16337026
- Title: AlphaPIX and betaPIX and their role in focal adhesion formation.
- Authors: Rosenberger G, Kutsche K.
- Journal: European Journal of Cell Biology (Eur J Cell Biol)
- Year: 2006
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcb.2005.10.007
- PMID: 16337026 · PMCID: none · Open access: No · in PMC/EPMC: No
Article type
Review / highlight article (mini-review). Verified from the abstract, which states verbatim: "Here, we highlight the recent findings on alpha and betaPIX and their involvement in integrin-dependent signaling and suggest models for the role of PIX proteins during focal adhesion turnover."
The article synthesizes prior literature and proposes conceptual models. It contains no primary experimental data, no datasets, no deposited accessions, and no analysis code.
In-scope (pipeline-derived computational results)
NONE.
A review article generates no pipeline-derived results of its own. There is:
- no GEO/SRA/ENA/ArrayExpress/PRIDE/figshare/zenodo accession (none reported, none found via Europe PMC core record);
- no code repository (none reported, none found);
- no quantitative reported value that originates from a bioinformatic pipeline
and could be recomputed and compared (
no_expected_result); - only schematic/conceptual model figures, which are illustrations, not pipeline outputs.
Out-of-scope (not attempted)
The entire article — it is secondary literature (a review). Any experimental results it discusses belong to the cited primary papers, not to this RU, and are wet-lab cell-biology / microscopy in nature (focal-adhesion imaging, GEF activity assays), which is itself out of scope for pipeline reproduction.
Decision
DROP — drop_reason = non_pipeline (text-mining/harvest false positive: a
review article with no computational pipeline, no data, and no code). This is a
genuine, well-founded drop determined at the screening/scoping stage with zero
compute. «our HPC» was not required and no SLURM job was submitted.
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.
Correct non-pipeline drop. PMID 16337026 (Rosenberger & Kutsche, Eur J Cell Biol 2006) is a mini-review/highlight article: it deposits no data accession, ships no analysis code, and presents only conceptual/schematic model figures — claims.tsv is empty by observation. q1/q2 are red because there is no input data and no pipeline-derived reported value that could ever be put 1:1 against an output, but q3–q8 are green because nothing was computed, nothing deviates, and there is no fabrication or scientific discrepancy. The drop was made at the scoping stage with zero compute (no SLURM job, «our HPC» not contacted), which is the resource-respecting, well-founded handling of a harvest false positive — not an our-side failure or an authors' defect.
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.
Reproduction footprint
claude-opus-4-8Measured resources invested to assess this paper — sanitised (machine class only, no job ids/paths). Compute = HPC accounting (SLURM); tokens = the AI agent's session.