The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 11 of the 35 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Genome of the Ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and Its Implications for Cell Type Evolution
Open accessAbstract
An understanding of ctenophore biology is critical for reconstructing events that occurred early in animal evolution. Toward this goal, we have sequenced, assembled, and annotated the genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Our phylogenomic analyses of both amino acid positions and gene content suggest that ctenophores rather than sponges are the sister lineage to all other animals. Mnemiopsis lacks many of the genes found in bilaterian mesodermal cell types, suggesting that these cell types evolved independently. The set of neural genes in Mnemiopsis is similar to that of sponges, indicating that sponges may have lost a nervous system. These results present a newly supported view of early animal evolution that accounts for major losses and/or gains of sophisticated cell types, including nerve and muscle cells.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Own result · 16 Sources not found · 14 Own interpretation · 5 Partly supported · 4 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 No full text of the sources · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Other genes known to be involved in bilaterian mesoderm development, such as gli/glis genes, are expressed in neural (but not mesodermal) cells in M. leidyi (47).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Mesoderm components in Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [47] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports Mlglis and Mlgli expression in putative sensory cells of the M. leidyi apical organ, with Mlglis absent from other tissues; the Abstract describes their expression as exclusively neural. But the Discussion identifies zic genes, not gli/glis genes, as having mesodermal expression throughout Bilateria. The cited paper therefore supports the M. leidyi expression pattern, but not the claim that gli/glis genes are known to be involved in bilaterian mesoderm development. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Our re-analysis of an expanded set of near intron pairs (37) was also consistent with these results (Fig. S2).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Phylogenetic position of Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [37] source
Section 3.1 (p. 4) describes the cited paper's large near-intron-pair dataset, including 73,593 pairs retained for phylogenetic analysis. The citation identifies the dataset being re-analyzed; the claim that the re-analysis was consistent with the citing authors' results is their own finding, not one attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Fig. S2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Both A. queenslandica and M. leidyi contain orthologs of transcription factors involved in bilaterian and cnidarian neural development, including lhx (46), bHLH, six, gli, and sox (classes B, C, E, F) genes.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Neural components in Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [46] source
The citation is attached specifically to “lhx.” The Results (Phylogenetic relationships, Table 1) list Lhx genes in both M. leidyi and A. queenslandica, and the Background describes Lhx expression in neural territories and putative photosensory cells. This citation is not offered for the other gene families in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our phylogenomic analyses of both amino acid positions and gene content suggests that ctenophores rather than sponges are the sister lineage to all other animals.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The level of repetitive sequence in the M. leidyi genome is low to moderate, as compared to other metazoans (Tables S3–4)”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Characteristics of the Mnemiopsis leidyi genome
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tables S3–4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The set of neural genes in Mnemiopsis is similar to that of sponges”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eight percent of predicted genes are embedded within other genes.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Characteristics of the Mnemiopsis leidyi genome
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mnemiopsis lacks many of the genes found in bilaterian mesodermal cell types”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Abstract
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we conservatively assign 44% of these gene predictions into homology groups with non-ctenophores.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Characteristics of the Mnemiopsis leidyi genome
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The analyses run without non-metazoan outgroups show strong support for a monophyletic clade of Cnidaria and Bilateria (Table 1).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Phylogenetic position of Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The cell signaling components present in the M. leidyi genome include the RTK family, which predates the origin of Metazoa (40); the TGF-β signaling pathway (33), thought to have evolved in the metazoan common ancestor (39); and the canonical Wnt signaling pathway (34).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Cell signaling components in Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] source
- Supportedcites [33] source
Citation 33 is attached to the TGF-β pathway, not the separately cited RTK and Wnt claims. The Ligand diversity section reports a near-complete TGF-β signaling pathway in the Mnemiopsis genome, including ligands, receptors, and Smads. Page numbers were not provided in the passages. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [34] source
The citation to this paper is attached to the canonical Wnt signaling pathway, not the RTK or TGF-β claims. The Background reports a near-complete Wnt signaling pathway in the M. leidyi genome, while the Results identify its ligands, receptors and downstream components. The paper notes that some components are missing. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“An exception to this shared pattern with sponges is the presence of two definitive opsin genes in M. leidyi, but not A. queenslandica, that are expressed in photocytes (light producing cells), as well as in putative photosensory cells in the apical sense organ (12).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Neural components in Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [12] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'Mnemiopsis opsin mRNA expression' section reports expression of two opsin homologs in photocytes and the apical sense organ, and the 'Sequence retrieval for opsin phylogeny' section reports no opsin hits in Amphimedon. However, the paper identifies three putative opsin genes in M. leidyi, not two definitive ones; it demonstrates photopigment function for only MleiOpsin2. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The pattern of presence and absence of gene families and signaling pathway components seen in previous studies is consistent with these results (32–36).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Phylogenetic position of Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] source
- Supportedcites [33] source
The Introduction (page not available) reports that core TGF-β pathway components occur across the metazoans studied, while receptors and ligands have not been found outside metazoans. The Pathway members section (page not available) also identifies components present and others not identified in Mnemiopsis, supporting the citation as an example of a presence-and-absence pattern. The citing paper’s own comparison with “these results” cannot be assessed from this source alone. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Supportedcites [34] source
The Discussion’s ‘Ancestral metazoan gene complement’ section compares the presence and absence of Wnt-family genes and signaling components across animal groups in Table 2. It also discusses how those patterns relate to earlier analyses. This supports citing the paper as a previous study of such patterns, although the citing document’s own results are not provided for a direct comparison. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites [35] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) compare the presence of nuclear-receptor subfamilies across ctenophores, sponges and other animals, including receptors identified in previous studies. The Discussion says their limited diversity in ctenophores and sponges provides evidence for those lineages’ early branching. The paper does not address a broader pattern of signaling-pathway components, so it supports only the gene-family part of the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [36] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion’s ParaHoxozoa section (page unavailable) says that the presence and absence of homeodomain gene families supports a clade uniting cnidarians, bilaterians and placozoans, and relates this pattern to previous studies. The paper does not establish a corresponding pattern for signaling-pathway components, so that part of the attributed claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This interpretation is compatible with a recent report that striated musculature evolved independently in bilaterians, cnidarians, and in the ctenophore Euplokamis dunlapae (49).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Discussion and Conclusion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [49] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and discussion (page not specified) conclude that striated muscles in bilaterians and hydrozoan cnidarians very likely evolved convergently. For the ctenophore, the paper says only that this *may* apply to Euplokamis sp.; it does not identify the species as Euplokamis dunlapae or establish its independent origin. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“We found no support in any of these analyses for Coelenterata (Cn, Ct), Diploblastica (Bi,), or Placozoa being the sister lineage to the rest of animals (Tr,) (Table 1; Fig. S1).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Phylogenetic position of Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fig. S1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we have sequenced, assembled, and annotated the genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Abstract
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The M. leidyi genome is among the smallest 7% of genomes when compared to those catalogued in the Animal Genome Size Database (26)”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Characteristics of the Mnemiopsis leidyi genome
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average length of an unspliced M. leidyi transcript is 5.8 kilobases.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Characteristics of the Mnemiopsis leidyi genome
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final assembly consists of 5,100 scaffolds, resulting in 160-fold physical coverage and an N50 of 187 kilobases (SOM S3).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Genome sequencing and assembly
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It encodes 16,545 predicted protein-coding loci, which comprises 58% of the genome”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Characteristics of the Mnemiopsis leidyi genome
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We were able to identify putative snail genes in T. inconstans and E. dunlapae, and putative GATA genes in five of the seven species.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Mesoderm and neural components also absent from other ctenophores
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We have found instead that the branch lengths in the phylogenetic analyses of our concatenated protein matrices show M. leidyi branches to be of similar length to those of Drosophila melanogaster, therefore exhibiting high (but not extreme) amino acid replacement rates (Tables S12–13).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Phylogenetic position of Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tables S12–13
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Relatively few components of the Notch pathway (Tables S15–16) are present and many of those lack key diagnostic domains.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Cell signaling components in Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tables S15–16
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The conflict between the maximum-likelihood and Bayesian analysis of the amino acid matrix make it difficult to determine from these analyses whether Ctenophora or Porifera are the sister group to the rest of the Metazoa, but there is substantial support for ctenophore as sister group to the rest of animals (Table 1).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Phylogenetic position of Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“sponges and ctenophores lack a similar set of synaptic scaffolding genes (Tables S17–18), all of which are present in cnidarians and bilaterians (Fig. 5).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Neural components in Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tables S17–18
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fig. 5
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We recovered broad support for a sister relationship between Cnidaria and Bilateria (Cn, Bi) and for a clade of Placozoa, Cnidaria, and Bilateria (Tr, Cn, Bi).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Phylogenetic position of Mnemiopsis leidyi
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With a ctenophore genome in hand, we show that gene content data supports Ctenophora as the sister group to all other animals and statistically reject competing hypotheses.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Discussion and Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably absent from both the TGF-β and Wnt pathways are the major bilaterian antagonists; members of the Wnt/PCP pathway, such as Flamingo and Strabismus, are not present.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Cell signaling components in Mnemiopsis leidyi
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The result of this analysis was a tree supporting Ctenophora as the sister group to all other animals (Ct,) (Fig. 4) and the rejection of all other alternative topologies (in Fig. 2) at the 5% confidence level by likelihood-based statistical hypothesis testing (Table S14).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Phylogenetic position of Mnemiopsis leidyi
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fig. 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Table S14
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Ionotropic glutamate receptors are absent from A. queenslandica, but are present in the transcriptomes of eight other sponges (48).”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Mesoderm and neural components also absent from other ctenophores
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [48]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These numbers suggest that the assembly is both complete and accurately assembled.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Genome sequencing and assembly
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The inconsistency of reports as to the phylogenetic position of ctenophores (Table S1) has made it difficult to evaluate morphological, developmental, and experimental data involving these animals in an evolutionary context, complicating efforts to understand the early evolution of animals.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Table S1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The phylogenetic relationship of ctenophores to other animals has been a source of long-standing debate.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we suspect the result is due to poor taxon sampling in the Genome Set.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Phylogenetic position of Mnemiopsis leidyi
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, this result is congruent with the structure and inventory of a variety of gene families and signaling pathways, as well as with genes essential to neural and mesodermal cell types.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Discussion and Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern suggests that a less elaborate nervous system was present in the metazoan ancestor and was secondarily reduced in placozoans and sponges.”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Discussion and Conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results indicate that, within ctenophores, the majority of absences are not specific to the M. leidyi lineage, but also that there are some intriguing differences in gene content between ctenophores”
§ The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution > Mesoderm and neural components also absent from other ctenophores
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Ctenophore biology is critical for reconstructing events that occurred early in animal evolution.
“An understanding of ctenophore biology is critical for reconstructing events that occurred early in animal evolution.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sponges lack a nervous system.
“the sponge A. queenslandica, an animal without a nervous system.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Therefore, LBA plausibly influenced the phylogenetic position of ctenophores in analyses of Ryan et al. (6) that recovered ctenophores-sister.”
From Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [6]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Under the ctenophore-sister scenario, these are most parsimoniously interpreted as arising on the myriazoan stem after the divergence of ctenophores1,5,59, and include genes associated, in bilaterians and cnidarians, with neuronal function1,5,59, development58 and cell adhesion60.”
From Ancient gene linkages support ctenophores as sister to other animals (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recent molecular phylogenies consistently group ctenophores as unrelated to cnidarians with a branching near the basis of the animal tree, but their definite position remains highly debated (Fig. 1b) (Dunn et al. 2008; Ryan et al. 2013; Simion et al. 2017; Whelan et al. 2015).”
From A non-bilaterian perspective on the development and evolution of animal digestive systems (2019) · cites this paper as Ryan et al. 2013
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Studies using partitioned site-homogeneous models have always recovered comb jellies as sister to other animals3,4,6,7.”
From Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding (2021) · cites this paper as [3]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Other than progressive data filtering, differences between datasets analyzed here and those used in previous studies of basal metazoan relationships (3-10) are increased character sampling and less missing data compared with some studies and increased nonbilaterian taxon sampling.”
From Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, ctenophores were recovered as sister to all other extant animals in maximumlikelihood analyses with greater taxon sampling (Bayesian inference never converged for datasets with more than 19 taxa).”
From Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“especially considering a growing body of evidence that supports convergent evolution of many animal traits including neurons (5,6,(41)(42)(43).”
From Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“the model of gene gain and loss used by these authors was not corrected for the fact that two types of genes were not included in their dataset”
From Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [4]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“indicating the original analysis of Ryan et al. (4) was severely biased”
From Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [4]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Analyses of large-scale molecular superalignments assembled from genomic or transcriptomic data have failed thus far to provide a widely accepted consensus for the branching order among the five major animal lineages, i.e., sponges, placozoans, ctenophores, cnidarians, and bilaterians [1-12].”
From A Large and Consistent Phylogenomic Dataset Supports Sponges as the Sister Group to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In previous studies, the Porifera-sister hypothesis has tended to be better supported by smaller, manually constructed and curatedphylogenomicdatasets[1-3],whereasdatasetsfeaturing many more genes and assembled using entirely automated procedures have tended to support Ctenophora-sister (e.g., [5-10]).”
From A Large and Consistent Phylogenomic Dataset Supports Sponges as the Sister Group to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Disagreement mainly hinges on the contradictory phylogenetic placements of ctenophores and sponges in different phylogenomic studies: either with sponges branching first (''Porifera-sister'') and ctenophores grouping with cnidarians and bilaterians (consistent with the classical view of a single origin of neurons in the eumetazoan stem lineage) [1-4, 12], or instead with ctenophores as the first”
From A Large and Consistent Phylogenomic Dataset Supports Sponges as the Sister Group to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [7]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Comparative analysis of gene content has also been proposed in support of Ctenophora-sister [7], but upon improvement of the inference method, the same data supported Porifera-sister instead [4].”
From A Large and Consistent Phylogenomic Dataset Supports Sponges as the Sister Group to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Comparisons among diverse genomes have identified numerous genes that are present in myriazoans but are absent in ctenophores1,5,58.”
From Ancient gene linkages support ctenophores as sister to other animals (2023) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Different interpretations of, for instance, the monophyly [60, 106] versus paraphyly [3, 89, 107] of sponges, the lack of consensus regarding lophotrochozoan interrelationships [108], and the phylogenetic position of placozoans [60, 61] and ctenophores [64, 109, 110], result in different predictions of character distribution among early animal lineages.”
From The origin of animals: Can molecular clocks and the fossil record be reconciled? (2017) · cites this paper as [109]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the conventional view of early animal evolution marching confidently through cell grade (sponges) to tissue grade (cnidarians, ctenophores) to organ grade (bilaterians) seems to be shaken by hints of a more complex pattern of gain, loss and convergence (Ryan et al. , 2013).”
From The origin of the animals and a ‘Savannah’ hypothesis for early bilaterian evolution: Early evolution of the animals (2017) · cites this paper as Ryan et al., 2013
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Various lines of evidence, especially the genome analysis of Ryan et al. (2013), suggest that not only are ctenophores basal, but their nervous system and/or mesoderm may be convergently derived relative to that of bilaterians”
From The origin of the animals and a ‘Savannah’ hypothesis for early bilaterian evolution: Early evolution of the animals (2017) · cites this paper as Ryan et al., 2013
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, phylogenomic analyses have supported both Porifera-sister [6, 7, 39, 41-44] and Ctenophora-sister [8-12, 35, 45, 46], with some studies (like [47]) presenting both trees.”
From Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two of these, from Ryan et al.3 (REA dataset) and Whelan et al. (2015)7 (WEA15 dataset) supported Ctenophora sister under partitioned phylogenomics, but were found by Pisani and colleagues8 to support sponges as sister to other animals under CAT/CATGTR.”
From Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding (2021) · cites this paper as [3]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Phylogenomic studies have resulted in controversial hypotheses placing either Placozoa (Fig. 1A) (2), ctenophores (ctenophore-sister hypothesis) (Fig. 1B) (3)(4)(5)(6)(7), or a clade of ctenophores and sponges (Fig. 1C) (6) as sister to all remaining animals.”
From Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, Ryan et al. (6) recovered a sister relationship between sponges and ctenophores in analyses where taxa with high amounts of missing data were excluded, and support for this was highest in Bayesian inference with the CAT (17) substitution model.”
From Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Thus, our results show that the gene content dataset of Ryan et al. (4) contains strong signal in favor of Porifera-sister”
From Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Thus, while strong support for Ctenophora-sister may be obtained from phylogenomic datasets (2 -6, 46, 55), our analysis suggests these results are caused by undetected systematic bias.”
From Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“One major result of the first whole-genome analyses of ctenophores (4, 5) was the finding that these organisms apparently lack many genes or use different genes involved in the development of anatomical structures, such as nervous systems, in other animal groups.”
From Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [4]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“while ctenophoran gene families lack many eumetazoan-specific orthologs (as shown previously [14, 15”
From Cambrian Sessile, Suspension Feeding Stem-Group Ctenophores and Evolution of the Comb Jelly Body Plan (2019) · cites this paper as [15]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Our robust support of sponge monophyly agrees with morphology (35) and most other large molecular datasets (5,6,(8)(9)(10).”
From Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals (2015) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“having lost several gene classes (e.g., microRNA processing enzymes [57”
From Cambrian Sessile, Suspension Feeding Stem-Group Ctenophores and Evolution of the Comb Jelly Body Plan (2019) · cites this paper as [15]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Recent phylogenomic evidence suggests that ctenophores may be the sister group to the rest of animals.”
From Where is my mind? How sponges and placozoans may have lost neural cell types (2015) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“Many neuronal genes are missing in ctenophores, for example, those for the synthesis and transmission of the classical neurotransmitters GABA and acetylcholine.”
From Sequential actions of β-catenin and Bmp pattern the oral nerve net in Nematostella vectensis (2014) · cites this paper as [65]
In the citing paper
“However, several of the ‘neurogenic’ TFs (for example, SoxB and bHLH) and RNA-binding proteins (Elav and Musashi) are present in ctenophore genomes6566.”
From Sequential actions of β-catenin and Bmp pattern the oral nerve net in Nematostella vectensis (2014) · cites this paper as [65]
In the citing paper
“Considerable uncertainty remains about the phylogenetic relationships between sponges, ctenophores, placozoa and other nonbilaterian animals [96-99].”
From An option space for early neural evolution (2015) · cites this paper as [97]
In the citing paper
“GTR+G was used by [8]”
From Improved Modeling of Compositional Heterogeneity Supports Sponges as Sister to All Other Animals (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
Citations
Cites
Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome
Grabherr, M. G., Haas, B. J., Yassour, M., Levin, J. Z., Thompson, D. A., Amit, I., Adiconis, X., Fan, L., Raychowdhury, R., Zeng, Q., et al. (2011) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1883 · Cited by 21,201
RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models
Stamatakis, A. (2006) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446 · Cited by 15,582
Trapnell, C., Williams, B. A., Pertea, G., Mortazavi, A., Kwan, G., van Baren, M. J., Salzberg, S. L., Wold, B. J., & Pachter, L. (2010) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1621 · Cited by 15,556
OrthoMCL: Identification of Ortholog Groups for Eukaryotic Genomes
Li, L., Stoeckert, C. J., & Roos, D. S. (2003) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.1224503 · Cited by 5,707
Haas, B. J., Salzberg, S. L., Zhu, W., Pertea, M., Allen, J., Orvis, J., White, O. R., Buell, C. R., & Wortman, J. R. (2008) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-1-r7 · Cited by 4,208
CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection
Shimodaira, H., & Hasegawa, M. (2001) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.12.1246 · Cited by 2,049
Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life
Dunn, C. W., Hejnol, A., Matus, D. Q., Pang, K., Browne, W. E., Smith, S. A., Seaver, E., Rouse, G. W., Obst, M., Edgecombe, G. D., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06614 · Cited by 1,921
Self-citationSea Anemone Genome Reveals Ancestral Eumetazoan Gene Repertoire and Genomic Organization
Putnam, N. H., Srivastava, M., Hellsten, U., Dirks, B., Chapman, J., Salamov, A., Terry, A., Shapiro, H., Lindquist, E., Kapitonov, V. V., et al. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1139158 · Cited by 1,555
Self-citationPhyloBayes 3: a Bayesian software package for phylogenetic reconstruction and molecular dating
Lartillot, N., Lepage, T., & Blanquart, S. (2009) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp368 · Cited by 1,297
The genome of the choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis and the origin of metazoans
King, N., Westbrook, M. J., Young, S. L., Kuo, A., Abedin, M., Chapman, J., Fairclough, S., Hellsten, U., Isogai, Y., Letunic, I., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06617 · Cited by 1,139
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Reverberi G., Ortolani G., On the origin of the ciliated plates and mesoderm in the Ctenophore. Acta Embryol. Morphol. Exp. 6, 175–199 (1963).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An integral program for tissue renewal and regeneration: Wnt signaling and stem cell control
Clevers, H. C., Loh, K. M., & Nusse, R. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1248012 · Cited by 1,386
Synthesis of phylogeny and taxonomy into a comprehensive tree of life
Hinchliff, C. E., Smith, S. A., Allman, J. F., Burleigh, J. G., Chaudhary, R., Coghill, L. M., Crandall, K. A., Deng, J., Drew, B. T., Gazis, R. O., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1423041112 · Cited by 810
Self-citationThe ctenophore genome and the evolutionary origins of neural systems
Moroz, L. L., Kocot, K. M., Citarella, M. R., Dosung, S., Norekian, T. P., Povolotskaya, I. S., Grigorenko, A. P., Dailey, C., Berezikov, E., Buckley, K. M., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13400 · Cited by 716
Smith, S. A., Moore, M. J., Brown, J. W., & Yang, Y. J. (2015) · BMC Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0423-0 · Cited by 590
Self-citationReactive Oxygen Species Signaling and Oxidative Stress: Transcriptional Regulation and Evolution
Hong, Y., Boiti, A., Vallone, D., & Foulkes, N. S. (2024) · Antioxidants · doi:10.3390/antiox13030312 · Cited by 775
Metadata
- Authors
- Ryan, J. F., Pang, K., Schnitzler, C. E., Nguyen, A.-D., Moreland, R. T., Simmons, D. K., Koch, B. J., Francis, W. R., Havlak, P., Program, N. C. S., Smith, S. A., Putnam, N. H., Haddock, S. H. D., Dunn, C. W., Wolfsberg, T. G., Mullikin, J. C., Martindale, M. Q., & Baxevanis, A. D.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- University of Bergen (NO)
- University of Florida (US)
- Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (US)
- Rice University (US)
- Brown University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Baxevanis, Andreas D.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2013-12-13
- Volume
- 342
- Issue
- 6164
- Pages
- 1242592-1242592
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- PMC
- PMC3920664
- OpenAlex
- W2164026798
- Cited by
- 682
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 114 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 134.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Rice Research Repository (Rice University) (acceptedVersion)
- Rice Research Repository (Rice University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Human Genome Research Institute (Z01HG000140, F05HG000140, ZIAHG000140)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Keywords
- Mnemiopsis leidyi, ctenophores, genome assembly, genome annotation, phylogenomics, animal evolution, cell type evolution, mesoderm, gene loss
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Base Sequence, Biological Evolution, Mesoderm, Molecular Sequence Data, Phylogeny, Genome, Cell Lineage, Muscle Development, Ctenophora, Neurogenesis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
