About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘duke retractions’ Category

RIP, Ed Rickards: Duke watchdog who covered Anil Potti case dies at 72

with 3 comments

dukeIt’s unusual for us to post obituaries on Retraction Watch — we’ve published just one so far in three-and-a-half years — but we wanted to pause for a moment to note the passing of a tireless crusader for transparency and accountability whose electronic path crossed with ours a number of times since 2012 because of our shared interest in the case of Anil Potti.

We learned of the death of Ed Rickards this weekend while Ivan was attending ScienceOnline 2014. The Duke Chronicle, the university’s student newspaper, reported on February 5: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by ivanoransky

March 2, 2014 at 4:57 pm

Former Duke researcher charged with embezzlement has a paper retracted

with 10 comments

j app physA new retraction notice in the Journal of Applied Physiology gives only a hint at the problems in the paper, but what it does say has led us to a story about one of its co-authors.

Here’s the notice, from a team at Duke: Read the rest of this entry »

Another retraction for Anil Potti, with an inscrutable notice

with 4 comments

We’ve seen a lot of retraction notices for work by Anil Potti — 10, to be precise, along with 7 corrections and one partial retraction notice. As notices go, they tend to be pretty complete. So when we saw one in CHEST for this 2008 abstract, we were expecting something similar.

Instead, we were confused.

Here’s the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

October 5, 2012 at 11:30 am

Lead author of major breast cancer study announced at ASCO co-authored two corrected papers with Anil Potti

with 7 comments

One of the biggest stories so far out of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting that just ended in Chicago was that of T-DM1, which, according to Ivan’s Reuters colleagues, “extended the length of time breast cancer patients lived without their disease getting worse.” (The news was even the subject of an embargo break.)

The widely-hailed study of Roche’s drug was led by Duke’s Kimberly Blackwell, who told The New York Times: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

June 4, 2012 at 6:02 pm

A “retraction in part” for Anil Potti and colleagues, in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

with one comment

A partial retraction has joined the ten retractions and five corrections of Anil Potti’s papers, this one of a 2008 paper in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. The move comes 14 months after the retraction of the Nature Medicine paper upon which much of the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics paper was based.

Here’s the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Tenth Potti retraction appears, in Clinical Cancer Research

with 3 comments

Anil Potti and his colleagues have retracted another paper, “Characterizing the Clinical Relevance of an Embryonic Stem Cell Phenotype in Lung Adenocarcinoma,” originally published in the December 15, 2009, issue of Clinical Cancer Research.

According to the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Two mega-corrections for Anil Potti in the Journal of Clinical Oncology

with 74 comments

Anil Potti can add two corrections to his less-and-less impressive publication record. The mega-corrections — part of what we are close to being ready to call a trend in errata notices — in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) are, however, quite impressive, each with at least a dozen points.

One of the corrections, for a paper cited 15 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, basically removes all references to chemotherapy sensitivity: Read the rest of this entry »

Anil Potti and colleagues retract ninth paper, this one in JCO

with 38 comments

Former Duke oncology researcher Anil Potti has retracted another paper, marking his ninth withdrawal. The notice in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) reads:

“An Integrated Genomic-Based Approach to Individualized Treatment of Patients With Advanced-Stage Ovarian Cancer” by Holly K. Dressman, Andrew Berchuck, Gina Chan, Jun Zhai, Andrea Bild, Robyn Sayer, Janiel Cragun, Jennifer Clarke, Regina S. Whitaker, LiHua Li, Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey Marks, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Anil Potti, Mike West, Joseph R. Nevins, and Johnathan M. Lancaster (J Clin Oncol 25:517-525, 2007)

The majority of the authors wish to retract this article because Read the rest of this entry »

Potti and colleagues retract 2008 JAMA paper

with 19 comments

Anil Potti‘s retraction count is now eight with the withdrawal of a 2008 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Here’s the notice, which appeared online in JAMA sometime yesterday: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

January 7, 2012 at 9:00 am

New in PNAS: Potti retraction number seven, and a Potti correction

with 5 comments

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has published the seventh retraction for former Duke researcher Anil Potti, who now faces a lawsuit in the midst of an ongoing investigation into his work:

Retraction for “A genomic approach to colon cancer risk stratification yields biologic insights into therapeutic opportunities,” by Katherine S. Garman, Chaitanya R. Acharya, Elena Edelman, Marian Grade, Jochen Gaedcke, Shivani Sud, William Barry, Anna Mae Diehl, Dawn Provenzale, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, B. Michael Ghadimi, Thomas Ried, Joseph R. Nevins, Sayan Mukherjee, David Hsu, and Anil Potti, which appeared in issue 49, December 9, 2008, of Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (105:19432–19437; first published December 2, 2008; 10.1073/pnas.0806674105).

The authors wish to note the following: “We wish to retract this article because we have been unable to reproduce certain key experiments described in the paper regarding validation and use of the colon cancer prognostic signature. This includes the validation performed with dataset E-MEXP-1224, as reported in Fig. 2A, as well as the generation of prognostic scores for colon cancer cell lines, as reported in Fig. 4. Because these results are fundamental to the conclusions of the paper, the authors formally retract the paper. We deeply regret the impact of this action on the work of other investigators.”

The 2008 paper, which has been cited 27 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, was already the subject of a minor 2009 correction: Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,167 other followers