Clinical and pathological characteristics of familial melanoma with germline <scp>TERT</scp> promoter variants
The main results reproduced: recomputed values matched the published ones within tolerance.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
- ✓Same input data as the authors
- ✓Reported values were directly comparable
- ✓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
- Every checked point held up.
▸Reproduction agent’s raw note
DROP (non_pipeline). PMID 35912549 (Zaremba et al., Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research 2022, DOI 10.1111/pcmr.13060) is a clinical + molecular-pathology case series of a familial-melanoma kindred (n=18 affected) with a germline TERT promoter variant. Every reported result is wet-lab or manual chart review (germline/somatic TERT & KIT variant detection by targeted/Sanger sequencing; clinical descriptors; treatment-response narratives) — none is a bioinformatic-pipeline output. No code repository exists and no public data accession exists (Europe PMC textMinedTerms + databaseLinks empty; no GEO/SRA/ENA/dbGaP/EGA/Zenodo/figshare; no PMC full text, Wiley paywall). Underlying data is identifiable single-family clinical/germline data, not deposited. Nothing in scope to reproduce; nothing run on «our HPC»; no result fabricated. Compounding reasons: no_code, no_data_accession. NOT attempted: recomputing descriptive statistics, because the underlying per-patient data is not public and such arithmetic is not a pipeline result.
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 ⛓ e62650cafdf1
✎ 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 · 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 determination — pmid-35912549
Title: Clinical and pathological characteristics of familial melanoma with germline TERT promoter variants. Authors: Zaremba A, Meier F, Schlein C, Jansen P, Lodde G, Song M, Kretz J, Möller I, Stadtler N, Livingstone E, Zimmer L, Hadaschik E, Sucker A, Schadendorf D, Griewank K. Journal: Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research (2022) · DOI 10.1111/pcmr.13060 PMCID: none · Open access: No (Wiley paywall)
What the paper reports
A single-/two-family case series of familial melanoma carrying a germline TERT promoter variant (NM_198253.3 Chr5:1,295,161 T>C, c.-57 T>C). Reported results:
- Variant carriership: detected in all melanoma-affected (n=18) and 1 non-diseased family member.
- Clinical descriptors from chart review: median age at diagnosis 30 y (n=18, range 16–46, 2 unknown).
- Histo/anatomic distribution of 33 primary melanomas: upper extremities n=7 (21%), SSM n=8 (24%), mucosal n=2 (6%), acral n=4 (12%).
- Molecular pathology of individual tumors: one SSM with an additional somatic TERT promoter mutation (Chr5:1,295,228 C>T); one mucosal melanoma with KIT copy number gain + activating KIT c.1727 p.Leu576Pro.
- Treatment-response narratives (BRAF inhibitor, ICI, imatinib).
In scope (pipeline-derived computational results)
NONE. No reported result is produced by a bioinformatic pipeline operating on a publicly shipped dataset.
Out of scope (why)
- Variant detection (TERT promoter, KIT) = targeted/Sanger sequencing + manual molecular-pathology interpretation = wet-lab, no deposited reads/VCF.
- Clinical descriptors (ages, anatomic sites, melanoma subtypes, treatment responses) = manual chart review of identifiable family members.
- Descriptive statistics (median, ranges, percentages) are trivial arithmetic over a non-public clinical table, not a pipeline; underlying per-patient data is not deposited (identifiable germline data on a single family).
Reproducibility surface
- Code repository: none found (abstract, Crossref relations, Europe PMC labsLinks all negative).
- Data accession: none found — Europe PMC textMinedTerms + databaseLinks return zero GEO/SRA/ENA/ArrayExpress/dbGaP/EGA/Zenodo/figshare cross-references.
- Full text: paywalled (no PMC); only Altmetric link exists.
Decision
DROP — drop_reason non_pipeline (clinical/molecular-pathology descriptive
case series; literature text-mining false positive for a computational
reproduction), compounded by no_code and no_data_accession. No public dataset
to profile, nothing to run on «our HPC». Honest drop; no result fabricated.
Determined 2026-06-18T11:38:16Z via Europe PMC + Crossref control-plane lookups (zero compute).
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.
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.