ArticleThe Prostate2026
RETRACTION: Lin28 Induces Resistance to Anti-Androgens via Promotion of AR Splice Variant Generation.
Article in The Prostate, 2026. 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. Tummala, N. Nadiminty, W. Lou, C. P. Evans, and A. C. Gao, "Lin28 Induces Resistance to Anti-Androgens via Promotion of AR Splice Variant Generation," The Prostate 76, no. 5 (2016): 445-455, https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23134. The above article, published online on 30 December 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Samuel Denmeade; and Wiley Periodicals LLC. A third party reported that the Lin28 band in Figure 4D had been duplicated and resized as the AR-V7 band in Figure 4E and that one of the AR-V7 images in Figure 4A had been duplicated in one of the hnRNPA1 images in Figure 5C. Further investigation by the publisher confirmed these duplications and also found that bands had been duplicated between Figures 1A and 5A and between Figures 1B and 5C. The investigation also found evidence of image splicing in Figures 3A, 3C, 5B, and 5D. The authors responded to an inquiry by the publisher and provided explanations for some instances of duplicated western blot images. The authors further stated that evidence of image splicing in the mentioned bands could be due to artifacts from image editing software. The authors stated that original data were no longer available. The editors determined that the re-use of experimental data between Figures 1A and 5C and between Figures 1B and 5C may have been appropriate. However, the re-use of data between Figures 4D and 4E as well as between Figures 4A and 5C, in which the data were used for different experimental conditions, was not considered acceptable. Additionally, the evidence of splicing in Figures 3A, 5B, and 5D added further concerns about the veracity of the data. The retraction has been agreed to because the multiple instances of duplication and potential splicing in some images compromise the editors' confidence in the conclusions presented in the article. The authors did not respond to our notice regarding the retraction.
Identifiers
41492202What 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.