Explore the vast range of titles available.

Formative experiences in adolescence lay the foundation for healthy and pleasurable romantic and sexual relationships. Exposure to pornography may affect these experiences. We aimed to synthesize evidence published in the past decade on the relationship between exposure to pornography and sexual behavior (earlier age of first sex [<16 years], condomless sex, past-year multiple partners [>1], lifetime multiple partners [>1], group sex, sexual aggression including forced sex, paid sex, teenage pregnancy, and history of sexually transmitted infection) in adolescents aged between 10 and 19 years. We identified 19 eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science databases from January 2010 to November 2022. Out of 8 studies that assessed earlier age of first sex, 5 studies, including 1 longitudinal study, found a statistically significant association with exposure to pornography. Given that most studies were cross-sectional or had substantial limitations, causal inference could not be made. Also, exposure to pornography was not measured consistently. The evidence was conflicting or insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding other outcomes. More quantitative research is needed to elucidate the association between pornography exposure and sexual behavior, and sex education should adopt evidence-based approaches to minimize the potential harms from pornography. PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021227390; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=227390.

Nucleotide sequence reagents underpin molecular techniques that have been applied across hundreds of thousands of publications. We have previously reported wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents in human research publications and described a semi-automated screening tool Seek & Blastn to fact-check their claimed status. We applied Seek & Blastn to screen >11,700 publications across five literature corpora, including all original publications in Gene from 2007 to 2018 and all original open-access publications in Oncology Reports from 2014 to 2018. After manually checking Seek & Blastn outputs for >3,400 human research articles, we identified 712 articles across 78 journals that described at least one wrongly identified nucleotide sequence. Verifying the claimed identities of >13,700 sequences highlighted 1,535 wrongly identified sequences, most of which were claimed targeting reagents for the analysis of 365 human protein-coding genes and 120 non-coding RNAs. The 712 problematic articles have received >17,000 citations, including citations by human clinical trials. Given our estimate that approximately one-quarter of problematic articles may misinform the future development of human therapies, urgent measures are required to address unreliable gene research articles.

Human gene research studies that describe wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents have been mostly identified in journals of low to moderate impact factor, where unreliable findings could be considered to have limited influence on future research. This study examined whether papers describing wrongly identified nucleotide sequences are also published in high-impact-factor cancer research journals. We manually verified nucleotide sequence identities in original Molecular Cancer articles published in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020, including nucleotide sequence reagents that were claimed to target circRNAs. Using keywords identified in some 2018 and 2020 Molecular Cancer papers, we also verified nucleotide sequence identities in 2020 Oncogene papers that studied miRNA(s) and/or circRNA(s). Overall, 3.8% (251/6647) and 4.0% (47/1165) nucleotide sequences that were verified in Molecular Cancer and Oncogene papers, respectively, were found to be wrongly identified. Wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were distributed across 18% (91/500) original Molecular Cancer papers, including 38% (31/82) Molecular Cancer papers from 2020, and 40% (21/52) selected Oncogene papers from 2020. Original papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were therefore unexpectedly frequent in two high-impact-factor cancer research journals, highlighting the risks of employing journal impact factors or citations as proxies for research quality.

Human gene research studies that describe wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents have been mostly identified in journals of low to moderate impact factor, where unreliable findings could be considered to have limited influence on future research. This study examined whether papers describing wrongly identified nucleotide sequences are also published in high impact factor cancer research journals. We manually verified nucleotide sequence identities in original Molecular Cancer articles published in 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, including nucleotide sequence reagents that were claimed to target circRNAs. Using keywords identified in problematic 2018 and 2020 Molecular Cancer papers, we also verified nucleotide sequence identities in 2020 Oncogene papers that studied miRNA(s) and/or circRNA(s). Overall, 3.8% (253/6,647) and 4.3% (50/1,165) nucleotide sequences that were verified in Molecular Cancer and Oncogene papers, respectively, were found to be wrongly identified. These wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were distributed across 18% (92/500) original Molecular Cancer papers, including 38% Molecular Cancer papers from 2020, and 40% (21/52) selected Oncogene papers from 2020. Original papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were therefore unexpectedly frequent in two high impact factor cancer research journals, highlighting the risks of employing journal impact factors or citations as proxies for research quality.

Reproducible laboratory research relies on correctly identified reagents. We have previously described human gene research papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagent(s), including papers studying miR-145. Manually verifying reagent identities in more recent miR-145 papers found 20/36 (56%) and 6/36 (17%) miR-145 papers with misidentified nucleotide sequence reagent(s) and human cell line(s), respectively. We also found 5 cell line identifiers in two miR-145 papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences and cell lines, and 18 identifiers published elsewhere that did not correspond to indexed cell lines. These cell line identifiers were described as non-verifiable, as their identities appeared uncertain. Studying 420 papers that mentioned 8 different non-verifiable cell line identifier(s) found 235 papers (56%) that appeared to refer to BGC-803, BSG-803, BSG-823, GSE-1, HGC-7901, HGC-803 and/or MGC-823 as independent cell lines. We could not find publications describing how these cell lines were established, and they were not indexed in claimed externally accessible cell line repositories. While some papers stated that STR profiles had been generated for BGC-803, GSE-1 and/or MGC-823 cells, no STR profiles were identified. In summary, non-verifiable human cell lines represent new challenges to research reproducibility and require further investigation to clarify their identities.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.

Nucleotide sequence reagents underpin a range of molecular genetics techniques that have been applied across hundreds of thousands of research publications. We have previously reported wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene function publications and described a semi-automated screening tool Seek & Blastn to fact-check the targeting or non-targeting status of nucleotide sequence reagents. We applied Seek & Blastn to screen 11,799 publications across 5 literature corpora, which included all original publications in Gene from 2007-2018 and all original open-access publications in Oncology Reports from 2014-2018. After manually checking the Seek & Blastn screening outputs for over 3,400 human research papers, we identified 712 papers across 78 journals that described at least one wrongly identified nucleotide sequence. Verifying the claimed identities of over 13,700 nucleotide sequences highlighted 1,535 wrongly identified sequences, most of which were claimed targeting reagents for the analysis of 365 human protein-coding genes and 120 non-coding RNAs, respectively. The 712 problematic papers have received over 17,000 citations, which include citations by human clinical trials. Given our estimate that approximately one quarter of problematic papers are likely to misinform or distract the future development of therapies against human disease, urgent measures are required to address the problem of unreliable gene function papers within the literature. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.