Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.30.21267043: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: We asked subjects who were aged ≥ 18 years and who gave consent to participate in the study to answer internet-based questionnaires about COVID-19 vaccine adverse events.
    IRB: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Genequest Inc.
    Field Sample Permit: DNA sampling, genotyping, quality control, and genotype imputation: Saliva samples were collected, stabilized, and transported using an Oragene DNA Collection Kit (DNA Genotek Inc., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) or GeneFix Saliva DNA Collection (Cell Projects Ltd, Harrietsham, Kent, UK).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    For each population, GWAS was performed with adjustment for age and sex using PLINK (version 2.00a3).
    suggested: (PLINK, RRID:SCR_001757)
    We combined the statistical data from both populations using a fixed-effects model and the inverse-variance weighting method with METAL software19 (version 2011-03-25).
    suggested: (METAL, RRID:SCR_002013)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: This study has some limitations. Initially, we included 51 types of adverse events, but multiple test corrections were not performed. Therefore, the associated loci that we identified can include false positives, and thus, replicate studies are required. Second, our data on the adverse events was based on web-based self-reports and might have been affected by recall bias. However, the occurrence of adverse events was similar to the large-scale survey performed before in Japan18. Thus, our adverse event data is thought to have some reliability. Finally, our GWAS was based only on the Japanese population. Therefore, our results may not be directly applicable to other ethnicities.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

    Read the original source
    Was this evaluation helpful?