ArticleFEBS open bio2025
RETRACTION: Effect of a Neural Relay on Liver Regeneration in Mice: Activation of Serotonin Release from the Gastrointestinal Tract.
Article in FEBS open bio, 2025. 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
retractionR. Inoue, K. Kamimura, T. Nagoya, N. Sakai, T. Yokoo, R. Goto, K. Ogawa, Y. Shinagawa-Kobayashi, Y. Watanabe-Mori, A. Sakamaki, S. Abe, H. Kamimura, N. Miyamura, H. Nishina, and S. Terai, "Effect of a Neural Relay on Liver Regeneration in Mice: Activation of Serotonin Release from the Gastrointestinal Tract," FEBS Open Bio 8, no. 3 (2018): 449-460, https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.12382. The above article, published online on 16 January 2018, in Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/),has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Miguel A. De la Rosa; FEBS Press; and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The journal received a report from a third party which indicated that the Day 2 and Day 4 panels in Figure 3A had been duplicated and rotated. Additional investigation by the journal discovered multiple inappropriate image duplications and overlaps in Figure 6A. The authors responded to an inquiry by the journal, confirmed that images had been duplicated in both figures, and provided what was labelled as the correct data. Following receipt of the authors' explanation and new data, the journal requested an investigation by the authors' institution. The institutional investigation reported that there was insufficient evidence of intentional image manipulation and concluded that the image duplications were due to errors in image preparation by the authors. However, given the extent of the identified issues, the editors have lost confidence in the data presented and consider the conclusions of this manuscript substantially compromised. As a result, the Editor-in-Chief, FEBS Press, and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. have determined that a retraction is necessary. The authors disagree with the retraction.
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.