ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2024
Retraction: Increased Six1 expression in macrophages promotes hepatocellular carcinoma growth and invasion by regulating MMP-9.
Article in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Retraction of
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Yongyu Zhang, Shiji Wang, Zhongmin Liu, Lewei Yang, Jian Liu, Ming Xiu. Increased Six1 expression in macrophages promotes hepatocellular carcinoma growth and invasion by regulating MMP-9. J Cell Mol Med. 2019; 23: 4523-4533. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.14342. The above article, published online on 02 May 2019 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor-in-Chief, Stefan Constantinescu, The Foundation for Cellular and Molecular Medicine and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The authors asked to retract the article as they found that the experiments presented were not reproducible, due to a possible cell line contamination, and therefore the conclusions of the paper are not supported. Subsequently, an investigation into concerns raised by a third party revealed inappropriate duplication of images within the article (Figure 2C,D subpanels) as well as between this (Figure 2B subpanels) and four other articles that were previously published in a different scientific context. Thus, the editors consider the conclusions of this manuscript substantially compromised. Although the authors initially asked for the retraction, when asked to approve the retraction wording, they remained unresponsive.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.