ArticleDigestion2026
Retraction Statement.
Article in Digestion, 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
The article "Identification of LGR5 and TFF2 as Biomarkers in High-Risk Chronic Atrophic Gastritis: From Multi-Omics Mining to Clinical Validation" [Digestion. 2026; https://doi.org/10.1159/000549887] by Qingqing Zhang, Di Wu, Fengyun Guo, Shengnan Yang, Lijing Bao, Ruiying Zhang and Ping Wang has been retracted by the Publisher and the Editor.Post-publication concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the clinical cohort data reported in the article. The data presented in Table 1 shares the same subgroup size, gender distributions and H. pylori infection rates across all three subgroups to those reported in a previously published article by the same research group [1]. Additionally, the images in Figure 4b and d of this article are published as Figure 2a and b in [1]. The previous publication was not cited in this article.When asked about the similarities between the cohorts, the authors stated that they were two independent cohorts and that the similarities were coincidental. The Editors did not find the authors' explanation sufficient to resolve their concerns, and as a result have lost confidence in the reliability and originality of the reported cohort data.The authors did not respond to our correspondence about the retraction of this article within the timeframe specified.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.