ArticleCancer science2024
RETRACTION: Exosomal miR-106a-5p Accelerates the Progression of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Through FBXW7-Mediated TRIM24 Degradation.
Article in Cancer science, 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
retractionC.-W. Li, J. Zheng, G.-Q. Deng, Y.-G. Zhang, Y. Du and H.-Y. Jiang, "Exosomal miR-106a-5p Accelerates the Progression of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Through FBXW7-Mediated TRIM24 Degradation," Cancer Science 113, no. 5 (2022): 1652-1668, https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.15337. The above article, published online on 16 March 2022 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors; the journal Editor-in-Chief, Masanori Hatakeyama; the Japanese Cancer Association; and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. The retraction has been agreed following an investigation into concerns raised by a third party, which revealed that images of pathological results were duplicated across other articles in a different scientific context. The authors acknowledge the duplication of the images and apologise for the errors. Despite the authors providing all original data and reconducting the animal pathology experiments, given the extent and nature of duplications found, the editors consider the results and conclusion of this article to be invalid.
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.