Transferrin Ensures Survival of Ovarian Carcinoma Cells Subjected to Deferoxamine, TNFA, FASL, Trail or MYC-Activation.
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
PMID 30147567 is a 2001 one-page brief report in The Scientific World Journal (Rosenberger et al., Univ. Vienna) on transferrin protecting ovarian carcinoma cells against deferoxamine/TNFA/FASL/TRAIL/MYC-activation. It is a pre-genomics wet-lab study: no high-throughput assay, no bioinformatics pipeline, no deposited datasets (Europe PMC hasDbCrossReferences=N, no supplement), and no code repository. Nothing pipeline-derived exists to reproduce, so this is a well-founded DROP. «our HPC»/infrastructure was reachable and healthy; the drop reflects the paper, not our infra.
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
- 2026-07-27
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator headless) · 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.
Deep full-text extraction
Model: opusWhether transferrin ensures the survival of ovarian carcinoma cells subjected to deferoxamine, TNFA, FASL, TRAIL, or MYC-activation.
- ★ Transferrin ensures survival of ovarian carcinoma cells subjected to deferoxamine, TNFA, FASL, TRAIL, or MYC-activation. finding
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.
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 was reproduced, and correctly so. PMID 30147567 is a one-page 2001 brief report (The Scientific World Journal 1:93) on transferrin rescuing ovarian carcinoma cells from deferoxamine/TNFA/FASL/TRAIL/MYC-induced death — pure wet-lab, with hasDbCrossReferences=N, no supplement, no accession and no code repository. The reproduction room therefore recorded claims=[], datasets=[], compute_ran=false and dropped it, while confirming the infrastructure itself was healthy (hummel_reachable=true, probe «job» queued), so the drop reflects the paper, not our HPC. The obstacle sits on the data-availability / era side rather than being an authors' misconduct issue or a methodological error of ours: no value was contradicted, none was confirmed either. Hence yellow on q5/q7/q8 (unassessable, not refuted; no fabrication signal) with red on q1/q2 (no identical input data, no comparable endpoint).
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.