Author Correction: The cold-induced lipokine 12,13-diHOME promotes fatty acid transport into brown adipose tissue
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.
- Nothing in this column.
- 🔴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
▸Reproduction agent’s raw note
DROP (non_pipeline; supporting no_code + no_data_accession). The assigned publication PMID 41484224 is an Author Correction (erratum) for Nat Med 2017;23(5):631-637 (PMC5699924); the PubMed/efetch record has no abstract or body and the correction itself contains no computational results to reproduce. The underlying 2017 paper is a wet-lab physiology study (BAT fatty-acid transport, respirometry, qPCR, mouse assays) plus a targeted LC-MS/MS 88-lipid panel (BERG) whose only computational steps are off-the-shelf statistics done in 'Microsoft Excel, Graphpad Prism and RStudio using LIMMA' — i.e. no bioinformatic pipeline. There is NO analysis code (no GitHub/figshare/zenodo) and NO publicly obtainable dataset: MetaboLights ('There is no study'), Metabolomics Workbench ([]), and Europe PMC accessionTypeList (None) were all checked and empty; the only data artifact (Suppl. Table 1, 88-lipid values + cohort numbers) lives inside a single paywalled combined supplement PDF (NIHMS916046-supplement-Supplement.pdf) that is not retrievable via the PMC OA / Europe PMC supplementary-files APIs. No «our HPC» compute was warranted or spent. NOT attempted: re-running LIMMA/Spearman, because no per-sample data is obtainable and transcribing values out of a paywalled PDF would be forced/fabrication-adjacent (declined per BRIEF rule 3). The claim grades above are 'partial' only in the sense that the claims were located and documented for audit, not reproduced. Datasets were profiled in this same pass (dataset_profile.json). Drop is a valid outcome per BRIEF rule 6.
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 ⛓ 28e505f5cddd
✎ 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 2026-06-19no 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.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-41484224
Assigned unit: Author Correction: "The cold-induced lipokine 12,13-diHOME promotes fatty acid transport into brown adipose tissue." Nat Med 2026 Jan;32(1):379 · DOI 10.1038/s41591-025-04172-x · PMID 41484224.
Erratum for the original article: Lynes MD et al., Nat Med 2017 May;23(5):631–637 · DOI 10.1038/nm.4297 · PMID 28346411 · PMCID PMC5699924 (NIH author manuscript NIHMS916046).
What the assigned publication is
PMID 41484224 is an Author Correction (erratum). The PubMed/efetch record
carries no abstract and no body text — only the citation, the author list, and
the Erratum for Nat Med 2017;23(5):631-637 link. A correction notice contains
no new computational/pipeline-derived results of its own; it amends a
figure/text item in the 2017 article. The full correction text is behind the
Nature paywall (idp.nature.com redirect) and is not in PMC. Therefore there is
nothing in the assigned unit itself to reproduce.
What the underlying 2017 paper actually contains (read from PMC5699924)
A wet-lab physiology + targeted-assay study. Computational footprint:
| Reported result | Method named in paper | Pipeline? | In scope? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery: of an 88-lipid annotated-signaling-lipid panel, 3 species (incl. 12,13-diHOME) significantly ↑ with 1 h cold (14 °C) in human plasma (Suppl. Fig. 1, Suppl. Table 1) | targeted LC–MS/MS (BERG), then LIMMA in RStudio | borderline | out — no deposited data, no code |
| 12,13-diHOME negatively correlates with BMI / insulin resistance in a human cohort (n=55: 15 lean / 13 overweight / 27 obese) | Spearman correlation (RStudio) | borderline | out — no deposited data, no code |
| 12,13-diHOME ↑ fatty-acid uptake into BAT; respirometry (CLAMS), Seahorse, qPCR, in-vitro lipid uptake, mouse FA-transport assays | wet-lab assays + GraphPad Prism stats | no | out — wet-lab |
Stats verbatim: "All statistics were calculated using Microsoft Excel, Graphpad Prism and RStudio using LIMMA package." — ad-hoc, no shipped code.
Resolvability checks (control-plane, run this pass)
- Code: none. No GitHub/GitLab/figshare/zenodo link in paper or correction. →
no_code. - Data accession: none. Verified empty in MetaboLights (
There is no study), Metabolomics Workbench ([]), and Europe PMCaccessionTypeList(None) for both PMIDs. The 88-lipid measurements + cohort values exist only inside a single combined supplement PDF (NIHMS916046-supplement-Supplement.pdf), not as a machine-readable deposit; even that PDF is not retrievable via the PMC OA API (HTML/login wall). →no_data_accession/data_unavailable. - Pipeline: there is no bioinformatic pipeline — targeted LC–MS/MS
quantification + off-the-shelf spreadsheet/Prism/LIMMA stats. →
non_pipeline.
Decision
DROP. The assigned publication is a correction notice with no computational results; the underlying paper ships no code and no publicly obtainable dataset, and its analyses are off-the-shelf statistics on a non-deposited targeted-assay measurement. Reconstructing values by re-typing them out of a paywalled supplement PDF would be forced/fabrication-adjacent and is explicitly declined. No «our HPC» compute was warranted or spent.
Primary drop_reason: non_pipeline (correction notice / wet-lab + targeted
assay, no bioinformatic pipeline). Supporting: no_code, no_data_accession.
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 valid DROP: the assigned PMID 41484224 is an Author Correction for Nat Med 2017;23(5):631-637, carrying no computational results of its own. The underlying study's only computational steps are off-the-shelf stats (Excel/Prism/RStudio-LIMMA) on a targeted 88-lipid LC-MS/MS panel that was never deposited (MetaboLights, Metabolomics Workbench, Europe PMC all verified empty) with no code repository. Nothing could be reproduced, so claims C1-C3 are documented-for-audit but not tested — this is a data/code-availability failure (q1/q2 red), not an authors' fabrication signal, hence q5/q7/q8 are yellow rather than red. No severity or deviation can be quantified because no reproduction was possible.
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.