This paper is marked retracted in the scholarly record (OpenAlex). Interpret its findings with caution.
RETRACTION: “The Value of miR-296 and miR-517c in Evaluating the Prognosis of Patients with Glioma after Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy”
Journal of Oncology
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging · Circular RNAs in diseases
RETRACTION: W. Wang, A. Shi, B. Lei, K. Yang, W. Zhang, and P. An. “The Value of miR-296 and miR-517c in Evaluating the Prognosis of Patients with Glioma after Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy,” Journal of Oncology, vol. 2021 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6082458.
The above article, published online on 16 December 2021 in Wiley Online Library (https://wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
This article has been retracted following an investigation undertaken by the publisher. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:
-
- Discrepancies in scope
-
- Discrepancies in the description of the research reported
-
- Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described
-
- Inappropriate citations
-
- Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article
-
- Manipulated or compromised peer review
The presence of these indicators undermines our confidence in the integrity of the article's content, and we cannot, therefore, vouch for its reliability. Please note that this notice is intended solely to alert readers that the content of this article is unreliable. We have not investigated whether authors were aware of or involved in the systematic manipulation of the publication process.
We regret that the usual quality checks did not identify these issues before publication and have since put additional measures in place to safeguard research integrity.
We wish to credit our own Research Integrity and Research Publishing teams and anonymous and named external researchers and research integrity experts for contributing to this investigation.
The authors were informed of our decision to retract the article but did not provide a response.