Toolkit Findings and PubPeer comments

Stress-associated ovarian damage, infertility, and delay in achieving pregnancy and treatment options

Aynaoglu Yildiz, G. et al.. Investigación Clínica 64(4): 513–523 (2023). doi:10.54817/IC.v64n4a08

Main issues surfaced: The counts of fertile and non-fertile rats in Table 1 are contradicted in the text (a discrepancy of 2 out of 8).

Neurophysiological indices of CNS plasticity in the course of treatment of head trauma in adolescents

Iznak, A. et al.. Human Physiology 34(6): 672–677 (2008). doi:10.1134/s0362119708060030

Main issues surfaced: A discrepancy in terminology: the abstract states the main treatment group consisted of 30 adolescents with “severe” head trauma, but Table 1 shows 9 with “severe” and 21 with “moderate” head trauma.

Comparative neuroprotective effects of Cerebrolysin, dexamethasone, and ascorbic acid on sciatic nerve injury model: Behavioral and histopathological study

Elhessy, H. et al.. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy 17: 1090738 (2023). doi:10.3389/fnana.2023.1090738

Main issues surfaced: Two impossibly large standard deviations in Table 2, most likely a missing leading decimal point, plus two minor deviations from the stated analysis plan.

Superior Neuroprotective Effects of Cerebrolysin in Heat Stroke Following Chronic Intoxication of Cu or Ag Engineered Nanoparticles

Sharma, H. et al.. Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 11(9): 7549–7569 (2011). doi:10.1166/jnn.2011.5114

Main issues surfaced: p-values reported only as thresholds (“<”) or not reported at all. Suspciously small p-values under re-calculation. (would require further forensic analysis before a PubPeer comment)

Efficacy and safety of Cerebrolysin in moderate to moderately severe Alzheimer’s disease: results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial investigating three dosages of Cerebrolysin

Alvarez, X. et al.. European Journal of Neurology 18(1): 59–68 (2011). doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03092.x

Main issues surfaced: Three p-values inconsistent with their 95% confidence intervals. None changes the direction of significance; all three make non-significant values more non-significant.

Subchronic cerebrolysin treatment alleviates cognitive impairments and dendritic arborization alterations of granular neurons in the hippocampal dentate gyrus of rats with temporal lobe epilepsy

Zamudio, S. et al.. Epilepsy & Behavior 97: 96–104 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.05.025

Main issues surfaced: No problems found.

Safety and efficacy of Cerebrolysin in acute brain injury and neurorecovery: CAPTAIN I — a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, Asian-Pacific trial

Poon, W. et al.. Neurological Sciences 41(2): 281–293 (2020). doi:10.1007/s10072-019-04053-5

Main issues surfaced: Several brain-injury severity scores fall outside the range reported elsewhere in the paper, creating a contradiction. Fourteen outcomes were tested with no multiple-comparison correction — evidence for p-hacking. Six SMD or OR values are not centered within their confidence intervals, which is unusual but may have an innocent explanation.

Ameliorative influence of a nootropic drug on motor activity of rats after bilateral carotid artery occlusion

Gschanes, A. et al.. Journal of Neural Transmission 104(11–12): 1319–1327 (1997). doi:10.1007/bf01294733

Main issues surfaced: Four p-value recalculation discrepancies, all off by a small amount; none changes significance or the direction of any effect.

Design and synthesis of nano-biomaterials based on graphene and local delivery of cerebrolysin into the injured spinal cord of mice, promising neural restoration

Yari-Ilkhchi, A. et al.. Nanoscale Advances 6(3): 990–1000 (2024). doi:10.1039/d3na00760j

Main issues surfaced: Many p-values come out much smaller when recalculated, apparently because of unusually small reported standard deviations — possibly a unit-conversion issue in how they report their SDs. (Disentangling if there is actually a serious issue here would take further work.)

Cerebrolysin enhances neurogenesis in the ischemic brain and improves functional outcome after stroke

Zhang, C. et al.. Journal of Neuroscience Research 88(15): 3275–3281 (2010). doi:10.1002/jnr.22495

Main issues surfaced: Values labeled as standard errors appear to actually be standard deviations; possible under-dispersion in the baseline table (Table 1).

Cerebrolysin Attenuates Exacerbation of Neuropathic Pain, Blood-spinal Cord Barrier Breakdown and Cord Pathology Following Chronic Intoxication of Engineered Ag, Cu or Al (50–60 nm) Nanoparticles

Sharma, H. et al.. Neurochemical Research 48(6): 1864–1888 (2023). doi:10.1007/s11064-023-03861-8

Main issues surfaced: Numerous statistical inconsistencies; not written up because the paper had already been retracted for other reasons.

Neuropeptide Treatment with Cerebrolysin Enhances the Survival of Grafted Neural Stem Cell in an α-Synuclein Transgenic Model of Parkinson’s Disease

Rockenstein, E. et al.. Journal of Experimental Neuroscience 9(Suppl 2) (2015). doi:10.4137/JEN.S25521

Main issues surfaced: A very large number of statistical errors and issues with the statistical procedures, a few of which change subsidiary findings. (A PubPeer comment would require additional time on our end we don't currently have.)

Cerebrolysin and Recovery After Stroke (CARS): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Multicenter Trial

Muresanu, D. et al.. Stroke 47(1): 151–159 (2016). doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009416

Main issues surfaced: The abstract states a premature-discontinuation rate of 3.8% (8 of 208), while the body of the paper reports 12 premature discontinuations (5.7%). Also: mishandling of deceased placebo-group patients in the disability-score calculation, a minor calculation issue in smoking prevalence, a slight contradiction in average stroke-severity score between the results and discussion sections, missing confidence intervals on important numbers, and the same earlier study described twice with two different sizes (252 patients in the introduction, 246 in the discussion).

Timed Release of Cerebrolysin Using Drug-Loaded Titanate Nanospheres Reduces Brain Pathology and Improves Behavioral Functions in Parkinson’s Disease

Ozkizilcik, A. et al.. Molecular Neurobiology 55(1): 359–369 (2018). doi:10.1007/s12035-017-0747-4

Main issues surfaced: Numerous statistical issues and contradictions; not written up because the paper had already been retracted for other reasons.

Suicide Ideation, Plans, and Attempts Among Military Veterans vs Nonveterans With Disability

Blais, R. et al.. JAMA Network Open 6(10): e2337679 (2023). doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.37679

Main issues surfaced: The arithmetic is clean, but the headline protective-effect conclusion rests on 3 of 15 veteran-vs-nonveteran subgroup contrasts reaching significance (six point the opposite direction), the disability-by-veteran interaction the Methods describe fitting is never reported, and one Table 3 marginal effect is inconsistent with its own confidence interval and p-value.

Analyzed on July 27, 2026

Early Home Visits and Health Outcomes in Low-Income Mothers and Offspring: 18-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Conti, G. et al.. JAMA Network Open 7(1): e2351752 (2024). doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.51752

Main issues surfaced: The four significant female-offspring effects in Table 1 — including the abstract's headline P < .001 result — have p-values that reconcile with the printed 95% confidence intervals only if those are actually 99% intervals, alongside a “correlation coefficient” of 11.3 (likely 0.113) and a percentage (98.8%) that is impossible at its stated denominator of 618.

Analyzed on July 27, 2026

Associations between inclusive community coalition leadership and use of evidence-based practices

Wells, R. et al.. American Journal of Community Psychology 77(3–4): 590–601 (2026). doi:10.1002/ajcp.70049

Main issues surfaced: The lead predictor's response scale is stated two mutually exclusive ways (1–4 in the Methods vs “1.25–5” in the Results), the results tables label regression coefficients and standard errors as “M (SD)”, one row prints three different p-values (one as “0”) for an identical coefficient and standard error, and the randomized treatment-assignment covariate said to be in every model appears in no table.

Analyzed on July 27, 2026

Momentary Mediational Associations Among Affect, Emotion Dysregulation, and Different Types of Loss of Control Eating Among Adults With Binge Eating Disorder

Romano, K. et al.. International Journal of Eating Disorders 58(6): 1072–1084 (2025). doi:10.1002/eat.24415

Main issues surfaced: The repeated claim that positive affect played no role sits alongside data in Table 2 which appears to contradict that claim. Slight issues with rounding of averages.

Analyzed on July 27, 2026