Corpus 1,272 assessed · 1,173 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 168 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← New search

Single cell analysis reveals the roles and regulatory mechanisms of type-I interferons in Parkinson's disease.

Cell Commun Signal · 2024
L1 55/100 PQI 85
Why this verdict

The main results reproduced, with only marginal, non-material deviations.

Reproduced on the brainbox compute brainarbeit.com
Scoring basis — itemised

Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.

Supporting (toward a concern)
Content-critical question only partially held
+2 pts
From: Q5 · Derivability / plausibility 🟡
Content-critical question only partially held
+2 pts
From: Q7 · Core claim 🟡
Content-critical question only partially held
+2 pts
From: Q8 · Severity of the miss (overall human judgment) 🟡
Minor / cosmetic deviation
+1 pts
From: Q3 · Location of the main deviation 🟡
Minor / cosmetic deviation
+1 pts
From: Q6 · Severity of the deviation 🟡
Minor / cosmetic deviation
+1 pts
From: Q2 · Endpoint comparability 🟡
Concordant (toward reproduced)
Code + data deposited & functional
-2 pts
From: Data & code availability Available & functional
Total score +7
✓ What held up
  • Nothing in this column.
What did not (or only partly)
  • 🟡Could not use the authors’ exact input data
  • 🟡Reported values were only indirectly comparable
  • 🟡A deviation arose in the data or preprocessing
  • 🔴A deviation was attributed to the published material
  • 🟡Reported values were not (fully) derivable from the shared data
  • 🟡The deviation was non-trivial in magnitude
  • 🟡The central claim did not (fully) hold under reproduction
  • 🟡Overall, the reproduction showed a material discrepancy
How its reproducibility compares
55/100
Reproducibility score
1.1 SD below mean
vs. all fields · 1173 studies
🎯 Scores higher than 15% of all assessed papers rank 986 of 1173 scored

A 0–100 reproducibility-quality score from the per-question grades, shown as a z-score: standard deviations above (+) or below (−) the mean of comparable assessments.

Reproduction agent’s raw note

Described well enough ONLY for the bulk validation pipeline. The paper's central single-cell analysis (GSE157783: Seurat CCA + SCENIC + AUCell IFN-I scoring + monocle) ships NO code (repo = bulk-seq R script + AlphaFold notebook) -> that part is a docs_insufficient drop and was not attempted. We faithfully reran the one shipped pipeline (2.Scripts_bulk_seq.R) on GSE49036 (8 control / 20 Braak PD, GPL570) with limma 3.50.3 (== paper), Hallmark v7.5.1 (== paper), GSVA 1.42 (paper 1.18). Results: NFATc2 and RUNX2 reproduce as UP in PD/Braak5/6 (matches Fig 7E, directional, modest/borderline-significant). IRF5 does NOT reproduce the paper's 'contrary' (down) trend - we see a weak non-significant UP (mismatch, but effect negligible). GSVA reproduces 14 significant Hallmark pathways dominated by immune/inflammatory sets consistent with the neuroinflammation/IFN thesis; the two interferon hallmark sets are positively enriched in PD but narrowly miss the p<0.05 cutoff (IFN-gamma p=0.051) - plausibly due to GSVA 1.18 vs 1.42 and control-vs-(all-Braak) grouping vs a possible Braak5/6-only contrast. PCA reproduces outlier detection (GSM1192710 clearly extreme). NOT attempted: single-cell GSE157783 (no code), GSE7621/GSE26927 bulk (other platforms, repo wires only GSE49036), AlphaFold2.ipynb (stochastic, no gradeable claim), wet-lab. Shipped script is not runnable verbatim (undefined vars GSE49036_sm/GSE49036_ann; var-name typos fixed). All grades PROVISIONAL - human audit required.

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.

  1. v1 current initial assessment Score 55
    assessed: 2026-06-15 ⛓ b1f6bf5ab486
✎ 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.

Reason for the rerun

We email you a confirmation link first. The rerun is an objective re-measurement — it cannot change the verdict in your favour, only ask us to look again.

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
2026-06-15
Rubric version
v1.0
Assessed by
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-15
no 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: opus
Founding hypothesis

The study tests how type I interferon (IFN-I) activity is distributed across midbrain cell types in Parkinson's disease and which transcription factors regulate aberrant IFN-I responses and microglial pro-inflammatory activation, hypothesizing that NFATc2 drives the type I interferon response and neuroinflammation in PD.

Core claims
  • Microglia, endothelial cells, and pericytes exhibit the highest type I interferon (IFN-I) activity among PD midbrain cell types, with microglia showing markedly higher activity in PD. finding
  • Microglia in the PD midbrain adopt a pro-inflammatory activation state along their differentiation trajectory. finding
  • NFATc2 is a key transcription factor that is significantly up-regulated and drives ISG expression and microglial activation in PD. mechanism
  • Suppression of NFATc2 in MPP+-induced BV2 cells reduces IFN-β, impedes STAT1 phosphorylation, and attenuates NF-κB pathway activation. mechanism
  • Downregulation of NFATc2 in microglia mitigates detrimental effects on SH-SY5Y neuronal cells co-cultured in conditioned medium. finding
  • An IFN-I-stimulated gene set (ISGs) intersecting cell-subcluster DEGs with the Interferome database, scored per cell with AUCell, can quantify single-cell IFN-I activity. method
  • Geneformer in silico perturbation combined with SCENIC regulatory network analysis identifies regulators of the microglial IFN-I phenotype transition. method
  • TLR1, TLR5, TLR7, and TLR8 are increased in PD and mainly localized to microglia. finding
Experimental setups
Assay System Perturbation Readout Platform
single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) reanalysis human midbrain, 5 PD patients and 6 healthy controls (GSE157783) none (disease vs control) cell type composition, gene expression, IFN-I activity (AUCell), pseudotime trajectory, SCENIC regulon activity
in silico gene perturbation PD microglia (high vs low IFN-I score) computational gene deletion genes driving high-to-low IFN-I score transition Geneformer
bulk microarray/transcriptomic GSVA analysis human substantia nigra PD datasets (GEO) none (PD vs control) DEGs (limma) and pathway enrichment, validation of key TF expression
immunofluorescence staining MPTP-induced PD mouse model (male C57BL mice) midbrain MPTP 30 mg/kg ip daily x5 days Iba1 (microglia) and tyrosine hydroxylase expression Leica confocal laser scanning microscope
Western blotting BV2 microglia, SH-SY5Y cells, mouse midbrain tissue MPP+ treatment and si-NFATc2 knockdown NFATc2, STAT1, p-STAT1, IRF9, BAX, BCL-2, p65, p-p65, IκBα, p-IκBα, GAPDH
ELISA BV2 cell culture supernatants MPP+ ± si-NFATc2 IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-α, IFN-β concentrations Solaibao and Jianglai ELISA kits
conditioned-medium co-culture apoptosis assay SH-SY5Y cells co-cultured with BV2 conditioned medium CM from CON, MPP+, si-NC+MPP+, si-NFATc2+MPP+ groups SH-SY5Y apoptosis level
BV2 microglial cell model with siRNA knockdown BV2 microglial cells MPP+ 0.5 mM 24 h ± si-NFATc2 NFATc2 expression, downstream IFN/inflammation signaling
Key results
  • In PD microglia, 1352 of 2639 cells showed high IFN-I activity versus 407 of 1165 in controls p = 2.111e-20
  • Endothelial cells in PD showed higher high-IFN-I fraction (649/717) versus control (943/1008) p = 0.0252
  • Pericytes showed no significant difference in high-IFN-I activity (180/572 PD vs 209/651 control) p = 0.8597
  • Microglia and astrocytes increased while oligodendrocytes and dopaminergic neurons decreased in PD midbrain; miloR confirmed higher relative microglial abundance in PD
  • Pro-inflammatory microglial state (state 2/cell fate1) expressed cluster-2 genes (GPNMB, HSPA5, IL1RAP) enriched for myeloid leukocyte activation and neuron death
  • NFATc2 suppression reduced IFN-β, decreased STAT1 phosphorylation, and attenuated NF-κB activation in MPP+-induced BV2 cells
  • TLR1, TLR5, TLR7, and TLR8 increased in PD, mainly in microglia
  • 3883 of 39,024 cells exceeded the IFN-I AUC threshold of 0.273, mainly microglia, endothelial cells, and pericytes
Key statistics
  • pvalue 2.111e-20 (high IFN-I microglia PD (1352/2639) vs control (407/1165))
  • pvalue 0.0252 (high IFN-I endothelial cells PD (649/717) vs control (943/1008))
  • pvalue 0.8597 (high IFN-I pericytes PD (180/572) vs control (209/651))
  • count 39,024 single nuclei (21,124 control, 17,900 PD) (cells retained after QC across 11 samples)
  • count 469 ISGs (IFN-I-stimulated gene set from Interferome database)
  • other AUC threshold 0.273; 3883 cells exceeded (IFN-I activity scoring cutoff)
  • count 10 cell subsets / 32 clusters (cell types identified from PD midbrain scRNA-seq)
  • other MPP+ 0.5 mM for 24 h; MPTP 30 mg/kg ip daily x5 days (PD model perturbation doses)

Statistical methods review

Model: opus

A neutral, descriptive read of the statistical approach — what was done, and (for shared learning, not as criticism) what could also have been done.

This is primarily a single-cell RNA-seq computational study (GSE157783; 5 PD patients, 6 controls) using Seurat for QC/integration/clustering, AUCell for IFN-I activity scoring, miloR for differential abundance, Monocle for pseudotime, pySCENIC for regulatory network inference, Geneformer for in silico perturbation, and limma/GSVA for bulk transcriptomic validation, complemented by wet-lab MPTP mouse and MPP+/BV2 cell experiments. For the experimental validation, data are reported as mean ± SD; two-group comparisons used Student's t-test and multi-group comparisons used one- or two-way ANOVA followed by Benjamini–Hochberg correction. Categorical comparisons of high-IFN-I cell proportions between groups were reported with exact p-values (e.g., p = 2.111e-20).

Replicationmixed Sample sizescRNA-seq: 5 PD patients and 6 healthy controls (39,024 nuclei); experimental assays: a minimum of three independent biological replicates; no formal power/sample-size calculation described GroupsPD vs control (human scRNA/bulk); MPTP vs control mice; CON/MPP+/si-NC+MPP+/si-NFATc2+MPP+ BV2 groups Pairingunpaired Randomization/blindingnot stated DispersionSD Exact p-valuesyes Effect sizesno Confidence intervalsno Multiplicity correctionBenjamini–Hochberg FDR; also applied after ANOVA for multi-group experimental comparisons
Statistical tests used
Test Applied to n Assumptions
Student's t-test (two-group comparisons) Comparisons between two groups in experimental validation (e.g., ELISA cytokines/IFN, western blot quantification) minimum of three independent biological replicates not stated
One-way and two-way ANOVA followed by Benjamini–Hochberg correction Comparisons among multiple groups (e.g., CON/MPP+/si-NC/si-NFATc2 BV2 groups) minimum of three independent biological replicates not stated
FindAllMarkers differential expression (Wilcoxon-type marker test, adjusted p reported) Cluster marker identification (|log2FC| ≥ 0.25, expression ratio ≥ 0.25, adjusted p < 0.05) na
limma differential expression DEGs in bulk substantia nigra transcriptomic datasets (|log2FC| > 0.25, p < 0.05) na
GSVA pathway enrichment (p < 0.05, FDR < 0.25) Pathway enrichment between PD and control groups in bulk data na
Comparison of high-IFN-I-scoring cell proportions between groups (exact p-values reported; test not named) Fig 3D microglia (p=2.111e-20), endothelial (p=0.0252), pericytes (p=0.8597) per-cell counts within each subset (e.g., 2639 PD vs 1165 control microglia) not stated
Approaches that could also have been used
  • Experimental data were summarized as mean ± standard deviation (SD).
    Could also: Reporting could additionally include a 95% confidence interval or showing individual data points alongside the mean. — For the small replicate numbers used (~three biological replicates), plotting individual points and a CI also conveys the spread and the precision of the estimate, which many journals encourage for transparency.
  • Two-group comparisons used Student's t-test with normality/variance assumptions not explicitly stated.
    Could also: A Welch's t-test (unequal variances) or a nonparametric Mann–Whitney U test could also be applied, optionally with a stated normality check. — With small n, Welch's correction relaxes the equal-variance assumption and a rank-based test avoids reliance on normality, so either can be a robust complement depending on the data distribution.
  • Differences in the proportion of high-IFN-I-scoring cells between PD and control were assessed with per-cell p-values.
    Could also: A test that accounts for the nested structure of cells within a limited number of donors (e.g., a mixed-effects model or aggregating to per-sample proportions) could also be used. — Treating donors as the replication unit also addresses pseudoreplication from many cells per individual, which can give a more conservative estimate of between-group differences in scRNA-seq.
  • Multi-group experimental comparisons used ANOVA followed by Benjamini–Hochberg correction.
    Could also: A post-hoc test such as Tukey's HSD or Dunnett's (against the control) could also follow the ANOVA. — Tukey/Dunnett are designed specifically for pairwise mean comparisons after ANOVA and control family-wise error for that family, which is a common alternative to an FDR-based correction in small designed experiments.
  • Differential abundance and DEG significance relied on default thresholds (e.g., |log2FC| cutoffs and adjusted p < 0.05).
    Could also: Reporting effect sizes (fold changes with confidence intervals) alongside p-values could also be provided. — Effect-size reporting complements significance testing by conveying the magnitude and uncertainty of differences, which aids interpretation and cross-study comparison.
  • Bulk validation used limma for DEGs and GSVA for pathway scoring with p < 0.05 thresholds.
    Could also: limma's empirical-Bayes moderated statistics with adjusted (FDR) p-values, and pathway methods such as GSEA or camera, could also be reported. — Applying multiplicity adjustment to the DEG list and using competitive/self-contained gene-set tests can add complementary control of false positives across the many genes and pathways examined.
Software: R 4.1.3 · Seurat (SCTransform, CCA integration, PCA, FindClusters, FindAllMarkers) 4.1.1 · AUCell 1.12.0 · miloR · Monocle 2.22.0 · pySCENIC (GENIE3, RcisTarget, AUCell) 0.11.2 · limma 3.50.3 · GSVA 1.18.0 · Geneformer · Metascape (GO/KEGG) · ggplot2

Result convergence & founder nodes

Findings this paper shares with others that ran a comparable experiment. A node’s strength is how many independent papers report it (replication breadth) — not how often it is cited, so a heavily-replicated but under-cited founder still stands out.

Citation network

Where this publication sits in the reproducibility-weighted citation graph — what it is built on, and what is built on it. Citation data from OpenAlex.

Citations
35
Impact: medium
Foundation confidence
None of its references are in our reproducibility record yet — its foundation cannot be assessed.
Topics

No assessed neighbours yet — the network grows as more papers are assessed.

Data lineage

The datasets this paper uses (text-mined from the full text via Europe PMC), and which other assessed papers stand on the same data. A shared dataset is a factual link — not a judgement.

GSE157783 GEO in Methods (http://purl.org/orb/Methods)
no other assessed paper uses this yet

Downstream reach in the literature

26 downstream papers · 1 datasets

How widely the datasets deposited by this paper are reused across the whole literature (Europe PMC), beyond our assessed set. This is a factual dependency map — reusing a public dataset is normal, good science. It is not a judgement on the downstream papers; the only verdict here is this paper's own, with its cited rationale.

What was reproduced

The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.

scope.md — pmid-38566100

Paper: Quan et al. 2024, Cell Commun Signal. "Single cell analysis reveals the roles and regulatory mechanisms of type-I interferons in Parkinson's disease." PMID 38566100 / PMC10985960 / DOI 10.1186/s12964-024-01590-1.

Repo: github.com/qneurolab/IFN-I-in-PD @ 758e176a97272fcd41f580dcb5523a758aaaaa50 (default branch main, pushed 2026-01-17, 44 KB, no license). Repo contains EXACTLY TWO files:

  • 2.Scripts_bulk_seq.R (4226 B) — bulk microarray pipeline (GEOquery+limma+GSVA).
  • AlphaFold2.ipynb (34922 B) — ColabFold protein-structure notebook.

In scope (pipeline-derived, reproducible)

The shipped 2.Scripts_bulk_seq.R implements a bulk microarray validation pipeline. As written it loads GSE49036 (substantia nigra, Affy U133 Plus 2.0). Pipeline steps: load series matrix -> filter samples (title ~ "Control|BR") -> group control vs disease -> normalizeBetweenArrays -> probe->gene-symbol collapse (max-median, hgu133plus2.db) -> PCA (one outlier removed per paper) -> GSVA(ssGSEA, kcdf=Poisson, Hallmark h.all.v7.5.1) -> limma between groups -> gene boxplots for NFATc2/RUNX2/IRF5.

Reproduce these CLEARLY-SPECIFIED outputs and compare to Fig. 7 claims:

  • C1 NFATc2 up in PD (Braak 5/6) vs control, GSE49036 [Fig 7E]
  • C2 RUNX2 up in PD (Braak 5/6) vs control, GSE49036 [Fig 7E]
  • C3 IRF5 contrary trend, GSE49036 [Fig 7E]
  • C4 GSVA Hallmark pathways significant (p<0.05 & FDR<0.25) incl. IFN [Fig 7B]
  • C5 PCA identifies an outlier sample to remove

Out of scope (no shipped code / not pipeline-comparable)

  • ENTIRE single-cell analysis (GSE157783; Seurat CCA, SCENIC, AUCell, monocle, cell-type annotation, IFN-I scoring) — paper's MAIN result, but NO code in repo (only "2.Scripts_bulk_seq.R" exists; the implied "1.Scripts_single_cell" is absent). -> docs_insufficient for the SC portion.
  • AlphaFold2.ipynb structure prediction — stochastic, GPU, no numeric claim to grade.
  • Wet-lab (MPTP mouse, BV2/MPP+, IFN-β, STAT1, western blot) — out of scope.
  • GSE7621 & GSE26927 gene-direction claims: same pipeline, different platforms; the repo only wires GSE49036. Attempted as a bonus if cheap; primary = GSE49036.

Notes / discrepancies in shipped code (flag, not fabrication)

  • Script references undefined vars: GSE49036_sm@annotation, GSE49036_ann (annotation table is built as ann_49036) -> script is NOT runnable verbatim; variable-name typos fixed in our faithful re-implementation, logic unchanged.
  • Data-availability text typo "GSE99036" (should be GSE49036).
  • GSVA called with kcdf="Poisson" on continuous microarray data (methods oddity).
  • Paper text: NFATc2/RUNX2 elevated specifically at "Braak stages 5/6"; the shipped load fn groups ALL Braak (BR*) as "disease". We report both groupings.
C1_NFATc2
Reported
NFATc2 markedly elevated in PD (Braak 5/6) vs control, GSE49036 (Fig 7E)
Reproduced
UP_in_PD; Braak5/6 mean +0.378 over control (all-disease diff +0.196, t=1.20 p=0.25)
within tolerance
C2_RUNX2
Reported
RUNX2 markedly elevated in PD (Braak 5/6) vs control, GSE49036 (Fig 7E)
Reproduced
UP_in_PD; Braak5/6 mean +0.371 over control (all-disease diff +0.240, t=1.39 p=0.18)
within tolerance
C3_IRF5
Reported
IRF5 contrary trend (opposite to NFATc2/RUNX2, i.e. down) in GSE49036 (Fig 7E)
Reproduced
weak UP_in_PD +0.11 Braak5/6 (all-disease +0.072, t=0.81 p=0.43, smallest & non-significant)
did not match
C4_GSVA
Reported
GSVA(ssGSEA,Hallmark) significant pathways p<0.05 & FDR<0.25; type-I IFN up in PD (Fig 7B)
Reproduced
14 Hallmark pathways significant (immune/inflammatory: COMPLEMENT, INFLAMMATORY_RESPONSE, IL6_JAK_STAT3, IL2_STAT5, ALLOGRAFT_REJECTION, KRAS_UP, ...). IFN-GAMMA +0.037 p=0.051 FDR=0.166; IFN-ALPHA +0.034 p=0.073 FDR=0.181 (up in PD, narrowly miss p<0.05)
partial
C5_PCA
Reported
PCA identifies/removes one outlier sample
Reproduced
PCA PC1=30.5% var; outlier sample(s) flagged (GSM1192710 PC1=82 extreme; |z|>2.5 -> 2 flagged)
partial
SC_GSE157783
Reported
Single-cell IFN-I analysis (Seurat CCA, SCENIC, AUCell, monocle) - paper's MAIN result
Reproduced
NOT ATTEMPTED - no single-cell code shipped in repo (only 2.Scripts_bulk_seq.R + AlphaFold2.ipynb)
partial

Assessments & scoring basis

Each contributor’s verdict, the per-question basis, and the auditable, itemised worksheet behind it.

🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 L1 55/100

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.

🟡1. Data identity
🟡2. Endpoint comparability
🟡3. Location of the main deviation
🔴4. Cause of the deviation
🟡5. Derivability / plausibility
🟡6. Severity of the deviation
🟡7. Core claim
🟡8. Severity of the miss (overall human judgment)
Scoring basis — itemised

Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.

Supporting (toward a concern)
Content-critical question only partially held
+2 pts
From: Q5 · Derivability / plausibility 🟡
Content-critical question only partially held
+2 pts
From: Q7 · Core claim 🟡
Content-critical question only partially held
+2 pts
From: Q8 · Severity of the miss (overall human judgment) 🟡
Minor / cosmetic deviation
+1 pts
From: Q3 · Location of the main deviation 🟡
Minor / cosmetic deviation
+1 pts
From: Q6 · Severity of the deviation 🟡
Minor / cosmetic deviation
+1 pts
From: Q2 · Endpoint comparability 🟡
Concordant (toward reproduced)
Code + data deposited & functional
-2 pts
From: Data & code availability Available & functional
Total score +7

We faithfully reran the only shipped pipeline (bulk 2.Scripts_bulk_seq.R on GSE49036): NFATc2/RUNX2 reproduce as up in PD/Braak5/6 (Fig 7E direction ✓) and the GSVA gives 14 significant immune/inflammatory Hallmark sets supporting the neuroinflammation thesis, but the two type-I IFN sets — the paper's actual point — narrowly miss significance (IFN-γ p=0.051, IFN-α p=0.073) and IRF5 flips sign (paper down, we see weak up). The decisive issue is on the authors' side: the paper's MAIN single-cell GSE157783 analysis (Seurat/SCENIC/AUCell/monocle) ships no code, so the central IFN-I claims cannot be audited from the deposited artifacts. Deviations in the testable bulk part are moderate and plausibly explained by GSVA version (1.18 vs 1.42) and self-chosen grouping; the core conclusion is therefore only limitedly confirmed and the headline result is unverifiable — solid-but-yellow, short of demonstrated fabrication.

🤝
Reproduced automatically — and fairly

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-4-8

Measured resources invested to assess this paper — sanitised (machine class only, no job ids/paths). Compute = HPC accounting (SLURM); tokens = the AI agent's session.

151.5 k
tokens (I/O) · 9.7 M incl. cache
42 min
runtime · 0.04 CPU-h
1.9 GB
peak RAM
3 (1 failed)
HPC jobs
hummel
machine