The role of the multidisciplinary health care team in the management of patients with Marfan syndrome.
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
DROP (non_pipeline), re-affirmed on independent re-verification. PMID 27843325 = 'The role of the multidisciplinary health care team in the management of patients with Marfan syndrome', von Kodolitsch Y et al., Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 2016 (now-confirmed DOI 10.2147/JMDH.S93680, PMCID PMC5098778, open access CC BY-NC). Publication type per both PubMed and Europe PMC = Review/Journal Article. It is a narrative account from the Hamburg Marfan center in which each key care-team member gives a personal account of their contribution to managing Marfan syndrome patients. Independently checked against the live PubMed record and the Europe PMC core API: no original dataset of any kind (no GEO/SRA/ENA/ArrayExpress/figshare/zenodo/dbGaP/EGA/PRIDE accession; no supplementary data deposited), no code/repository, no bioinformatic or computational pipeline, no cohort statistics, and no pinnable numeric result to compare. There is therefore nothing to reproduce 1:1 and 0 datasets to profile. This is a clean, well-founded drop per HARD RULE 6 (honesty over coverage) — nothing was forced or fabricated. The earlier run reached the same verdict; it was requeued (placeholder completed_utc / compute_ran=false), so this pass re-verified the determination from the primary record and enriched the previously-missing DOI/PMCID/venue. Not attempted: any «our HPC» compute, since none is applicable.
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 ⛓ 769055aff40d
✎ 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
- 2026-08-05
Provisional, curator- or AI-assessed, and independently checkable. A reproduction outcome states what one attempt could reproduce — not a judgement of the authors.
Deep full-text extraction
Model: sonnetThe paper argues that Marfan syndrome, as a rare, severe, chronic, multiorgan disease, requires an organized multidisciplinary health care team (coordinators, core disciplines, and auxiliary disciplines) to maximize therapeutic success and normalize prognosis and quality of life.
- ★ A multidisciplinary health care team is a means to maximize therapeutic success for patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) finding
- MFS is caused by mutations in FBN1, is autosomal dominant, and has a prevalence of 1.5-17.2 per 100,000 finding
- ★ Before modern treatment, 50% of men and women with MFS died by age 40 and 48 respectively, a 30%-40% reduction in life expectancy versus the normal population finding
- ★ Since the early 1970s, ~30 years of research has produced ~30 years of increase in average life expectancy for MFS patients finding
- ★ Clinical trials validated beta-adrenergic blockade (medical) and prophylactic aortic root repair (surgical) as therapies that directly increased life expectancy finding
- Hopkins clinic collaborators discovered the first FBN1 mutations in patients with classic MFS finding
- ★ The Hamburg Marfan center is organized into three structural elements: a team of coordinators, core disciplines, and auxiliary disciplines method
- ★ In a patient survey, competence of the medical team and multidisciplinary care were the most valued aspects of a Marfan Center, with gender differences in priorities finding
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| email patient questionnaire/survey | MFS, LDS, related disease, and suspected-MFS patients (members contacted via Marfan Hilfe Deutschland) | none | patient-rated most important aspect of a Marfan Center | — |
- ▼ Pre-treatment era: 50% of men died by age 40 and 50% of women by age 48 30%-40% reduction in life expectancy
- ▲ Average life expectancy increased by ~30 years following ~30 years of research since the early 1970s ~30 years
- ▲ Clinical trials validated beta-adrenergic blockade and prophylactic aortic root repair, leading to increased life expectancy
- – Survey response: 77 of 402 contacted patients responded 19%
- – Most appreciated aspects of a Marfan Center: competence of medical team, multidisciplinary care, and trusting the doctor/overcoming fear/explanations 33.8% / 29.9% / 15.6%
- – Men rated competence higher than women 47.6% (men) vs 28.6% (women)
- – Women rated multidisciplinary care higher than men 14.3% (men) vs 35.8% (women)
- – MFS prevalence reported across general population studies 1.5-17.2 per 100,000
- count 1.5-17.2 per 100,000 (MFS prevalence in the general population)
- other 50% mortality by age 40 (men) / 48 (women) (life expectancy before modern treatment era)
- other 30%-40% reduction in life expectancy vs normal population (pre-treatment era comparison)
- other ~30 years increase in average life expectancy (attributed to ~30 years of research since early 1970s)
- count 77/402 (19%) response rate (2016 patient questionnaire on Marfan Center priorities)
- other competence 33.8%, multidisciplinary care 29.9%, trust/explanations 15.6% (most appreciated aspects of a Marfan Center)
- other competence: men 47.6% vs women 28.6%; multidisciplinary care: men 14.3% vs women 35.8% (gender differences in survey responses)
Statistical methods review
Model: sonnetA neutral, descriptive read of the statistical approach — what was done, and (for shared learning, not as criticism) what could also have been done.
This article is a narrative review/perspective piece describing the organizational structure and multidisciplinary strategy of a Marfan syndrome health care center, rather than an empirical or experimental study. The only quantitative content is a brief descriptive patient questionnaire (query of 402 patients, 77 respondents) whose results are reported as percentages of respondents endorsing various priorities, including a breakdown by sex. No formal inferential statistical testing, hypothesis tests, or modeling are described anywhere in the text.
-
The paper reports a numerical difference in endorsement rates between men (47.6%, 14.3%) and women (28.6%, 35.8%) on two survey items without any accompanying statistical test.↳ Could also: A chi-square test of independence or, given the small subgroup sizes (21 men, 56 women), Fisher's exact test — Either approach would formally quantify whether the observed sex-based difference in response proportions is unlikely to arise from sampling variability alone, which is particularly useful when subgroup counts are small.
-
Survey results are presented as single percentage estimates (e.g., 33.8% rated competence most important) without any measure of precision.↳ Could also: Reporting a 95% confidence interval around each proportion (e.g., using the Wilson or Clopper-Pearson method suited to small samples) — A confidence interval would convey the uncertainty inherent in estimating a population proportion from a 19% response rate among 77 respondents, helping readers gauge how precisely the reported percentages reflect the broader patient population.
-
The questionnaire had a 19% response rate (77 of 402 contacted), and results are presented as representative of patient opinion without further comment on this rate.↳ Could also: A non-response bias assessment, such as comparing available demographic or diagnostic characteristics (e.g., MFS vs LDS vs suspected MFS status) between responders and non-responders — This would help characterize whether the surveyed subgroup differs systematically from the full contacted population, which is a standard consideration when response rates are well below the total sample.
-
The article as a whole is structured as a narrative synthesis of institutional history, team roles, and standards rather than a quantitative evaluation of patient outcomes.↳ Could also: A structured outcomes analysis (e.g., comparing survival, complication rates, or quality-of-life scores before vs after establishment of multidisciplinary care, using methods such as Kaplan-Meier survival analysis or a log-rank test) — Such quantitative methods could complement the narrative account by providing statistically grounded evidence of the clinical impact of multidisciplinary care models, an aim referenced in the text (e.g., increased life expectancy) but not statistically tested here.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — PMID 27843325
Title: The role of the multidisciplinary health care team in the management of patients with Marfan syndrome. Journal/Type: Narrative clinical review (Hamburg Marfan center). PMCID/DOI: none listed in brief; PubMed record only.
Determination: OUT OF SCOPE — non_pipeline (DROP)
Evidence
- Article type per PubMed abstract: narrative clinical/organizational review. Each team member of the multidisciplinary care team "gives a personal account of his or her contribution" in managing Marfan syndrome patients.
- No datasets of any kind (no GEO/SRA/ENA/ArrayExpress/figshare/zenodo/dbGaP/ EGA/PRIDE accession; none stated in brief; none in abstract).
- No code / repository (Code field empty; none referenced).
- No bioinformatic or computational pipeline — no sequencing, no microarray, no cohort statistics, no quantitative analysis to re-run.
- No reported quantitative result (figure/table value) that could be pinned as a
claim and compared (
no_expected_resultalso applies; primary reason recorded asnon_pipeline).
In-scope pipeline-derived results
None. There is nothing pipeline-derived to reproduce.
Out-of-scope content (entire article)
Descriptive account of care-team organizational structure (coordinators, core disciplines, auxiliary disciplines) and individual specialist perspectives. This is qualitative/organizational, not analytical.
Outcome
Controlled drop. drop_reason = non_pipeline. No «our HPC» compute warranted — there is
no pipeline, data, or code to run. No fabrication; honest drop per HARD RULE 6.
</content>
</invoke>
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.
Non-pipeline DROP confirmed. PMID 27843325 is a narrative clinical/organizational review of multidisciplinary Marfan care; claims.tsv is empty, the manifest has no code_url/data_accession, and there is no dataset, pipeline, or pinnable figure/table to reproduce. The 'failure' to reproduce is purely out-of-scope / data-unavailable, not an authors' defect and not fabrication-suspect — q5/q7 are non-applicable (graded yellow, not red). Overall yellow: an honest drop with nothing reproducible, neither a 1:1 success nor a substantive discrepancy.
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.