Course of HEV viremia and anti-HEV IgM/IgG response in asymptomatic blood donors
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). The paper is described well enough to understand, but it is a wet-lab serology/RT-PCR clinical lookback study, not a computational-pipeline paper: its reported numbers are descriptive statistics over non-public, privacy-protected blood-donor clinical data, with no deposited dataset, no analysis code, and no sequencing/phylogenetics. There is nothing to run on «our HPC» and no public data to profile or obtain, so this is neither a 1:1 reproduction nor a 'different-result' case — it is a valid drop. The only honest check possible was internal arithmetic consistency of the three reported cohort percentages against N=27 (19/27=70.4%, 6/27=22.2%, 2/27=7.4%, sum=27 — all consistent), which is recorded as provisional, arithmetic-only, and explicitly NOT a pipeline reproduction. NOT attempted (out of scope, require non-public per-donor longitudinal data): median time to HEV-RNA clearance (57 d) and >100-day viremia, median time to first IgM (53 d)/IgG (57 d) detection, and all wet-lab RT-PCR/immunoblot/O2C measurements.
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: 2026-06-18 ⛓ 1f189040a0ea
✎ 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
- 2026-06-18
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-18no 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.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope analysis — pmid-29860111
Title: Course of HEV viremia and anti-HEV IgM/IgG response in asymptomatic blood donors Authors: Kraef C, Schlein C, Hiller J, Westhölter D, Denzer U, Horvatits T, Peine S, Lohse AW, Lütgehetmann M, Polywka S, Pischke S. Journal: Journal of Clinical Virology 105 (2018) 26–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2018.05.013
Study type
Clinical lookback / natural-history study of asymptomatic HEV-RNA–positive blood donors identified by routine donor screening (German blood bank, UKE Hamburg). Donors were followed longitudinally; HEV RNA quantified by RT-PCR and antibody response characterized by immunoblot (recomLine HEV IgG/IgM, including the O2C epitope). Outcomes are reported as descriptive statistics (percentages of the cohort, median days to RNA clearance / to first detectable IgM/IgG).
What kind of "results" the paper reports
| Reported result | Origin | In scope? |
|---|---|---|
| N = 27 HEV-RNA–positive donors identified | Wet-lab RT-PCR screening | No (wet-lab) |
| 70.4% sero-negative at donation; 22.2% IgM+; 7.4% IgG+ | Descriptive stats over the 27 donors | Borderline — arithmetic only (see below) |
| Median 57 d to spontaneous HEV-RNA clearance; ≥3 donors >100 d | Median over per-donor longitudinal RT-PCR | No — needs non-public per-donor data |
| Median 53 d (IgM) / 57 d (IgG) to first antibody detection | Median over per-donor immunoblot timecourse | No — needs non-public per-donor data |
| All donors developed O2C-specific IgM/IgG | Wet-lab immunoblot | No (wet-lab) |
Pipeline-derived results IN SCOPE
None. There is no bioinformatic pipeline in this paper:
- No high-throughput sequencing (no NGS/WGS/RNA-seq/scRNA-seq).
- No HEV genotyping / phylogenetics reported (no GenBank/ENA accessions; the abstract and reported results are entirely serology + RT-PCR kinetics).
- No deposited dataset (GEO/SRA/ENA/figshare/zenodo/dbGaP/EGA/PRIDE — none).
- No analysis-code repository (authors' own or third-party).
- The only "computation" is descriptive statistics (proportions, medians) computed by hand/spreadsheet over a small, non-public, identifiable clinical dataset (German blood-donor follow-up records — privacy-protected, not and cannot be deposited).
Out of scope (not attempted)
- All wet-lab measurements (RT-PCR Ct/copy values, immunoblot bands/epitopes).
- All per-donor longitudinal medians (clearance days, seroconversion days) — the underlying per-donor timecourse data is not public.
What CAN be done honestly here
The reported cohort percentages are simple proportions of N = 27. We verify their internal arithmetic consistency (a sanity check on the reported numbers, NOT a reproduction of a pipeline): 19/27 = 70.4%, 6/27 = 22.2%, 2/27 = 7.4%, and 19+6+2 = 27 (the three groups partition the cohort). This is recorded as a single provisional claim and explicitly flagged as arithmetic-only.
Conclusion
DROP — non_pipeline. This is a wet-lab serology/RT-PCR clinical study
whose quantitative results are descriptive statistics over non-public clinical
data. There is no bioinformatic pipeline to run on «our HPC» and no public dataset
to obtain or profile. No heavy compute is warranted (and none was run). The
text-mining that surfaced this PMID as a candidate was a false positive for a
"computational pipeline" paper.
Secondary contributing reasons (had it not been non_pipeline): no_code
(no analysis code published) and data_restricted/no_data_accession
(clinical donor data, never deposited, not publicly obtainable).
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.
This is a correct DROP — non_pipeline: Kraef et al. 2018 is a wet-lab HEV serology/RT-PCR blood-donor lookback (N=27) with no deposited data, no code, and no computational pipeline, so a 1:1 reproduction is impossible — a data-availability situation, not an authors' defect or fabrication. The only honest check, arithmetic consistency of the three reported cohort percentages (70.4%=19/27, 22.2%=6/27, 7.4%=2/27, summing to 27), passes within rounding. The substantive claims (median 57 d to RNA clearance, 53/57 d to IgM/IgG, >100-day viremia) require non-public per-donor longitudinal data and were untested, hence q7 limited and q8 yellow rather than green or red.
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.