MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399729679 · doi:10.1080/00032719.2024.2367231

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Novel Cadmium Telluride Quantum Dot (QD) Fluorescent Probe for the Sensitive Determination of the Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Biomarker Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP)

2024· article· en· W4399729679 on OpenAlexaff
Xixuan Gu, Qingning Li, Xiaohui Song, Chen Chen, Xiaobing Yin, Jiayu Shen, Rui Yu, Keqi Tang

Post-publication record

OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanoplatforms for cancer theranostics
Canadian institutionsIONICS Mass Spectrometry (Canada)
FundersK. C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo UniversityNatural Science Foundation of NingboZhejiang Key Laboratory of Pathophysiology
KeywordsChemistryHepatocellular carcinomaQuantum dotAlpha-fetoproteinFluorescenceBiomarkerCadmiumCadmium telluride photovoltaicsCancer researchNanotechnologyBiochemistryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We, the Editors and Publisher of the journal Analytical Letters have retracted the following article:Gu, X., Li, Q., Song, X., Chen, C., Yin, X., Shen, J., … Tang, K. (2024). Novel Cadmium Telluride Quantum Dot (QD) Fluorescent Probe for the Sensitive Determination of the Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Biomarker Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP). Analytical Letters, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2024.2367231After publication, concerns were raised by a third-party about the source of the data reported in the article. Further investigations done by the Journal and Publisher identified significant authorship concerns including changes to the authorship list after the submission of the article. Additional article integrity concerns were also identified.We have contacted the authors for a full explanation, but we have not received a satisfactory explanation or the requested supporting documentation. As determining authorship and verifying the validity of published work is core to the integrity of published work, we are therefore retracting the article. The corresponding author listed in this publication has been informed.We have been informed in our decision-making by our editorial policies and the COPE guidelines.The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as “Retracted”.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical LettersSame topicNanoplatforms for cancer theranosticsFrench-language works237,207