155 papers that acknowledge grants still cite a retracted paper as support.
They are among 456 papers, published after the retraction, that cite one of the 9 retracted papers at the top of our Lists as support. 8 trials registered after the retraction list one among their references, enrolling or planning 1,669 people.
After the retraction: papers citing 9 retracted papers as support
In turn, 13,440 later papers cite those 456, among them 418 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 212 trials and 6 guidelines.
Papers citing each retracted paper as support after its retraction
This measures reach, not harm: a citing paper may lean on the retracted result a little or a lot.
This measures reach, not harm.
Source: SaneCite Lists, from Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov records, read 29 Oct 2026, for the 9 retracted papers at the top of the Lists. Support: judged by three AI models, then every support citation read again by AI models. Data as of 29 Oct 2026.
Source: SaneCite Lists, 9 retracted papers, Europe PMC and ClinicalTrials.gov, 29 Oct 2026 · sanecite.com/charts
Show the numbers
| Retracted paper | Retracted | Cited as support by | Of those, acknowledge grants | Systematic reviews or meta-analyses | Trials | Trials registered after the retraction | Later papers citing those papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fukuhara, Science 2004 | 2007 | 104 | 34 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4,426 |
| Mehra, N Engl J Med 2020 | 2020 | 80 | 23 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 2,461 |
| Morisky, J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2008 | 2023 | 56 | 18 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 225 |
| Panagioti, JAMA Intern Med 2018 | 2020 | 53 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 499 |
| Xu, J Cell Sci 2007 | 2011 | 51 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,003 |
| Wenz, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009 | 2016 | 31 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1,287 |
| Chen, Oncogene 2017 | 2019 | 30 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 519 |
| Rubio, Cancer Res 2005 | 2010 | 26 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1,509 |
| Raj, Nature 2011 | 2018 | 25 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 542 |
| All 9 papers | 456 | 155 | 13 | 12 | 8 | 13,440 |
Papers published after the retraction that cite it as support, after every correction on the Lists. Grants: the funding the citing paper acknowledges in its Europe PMC record. Systematic reviews, trials and guidelines: Europe PMC publication types. Registered trials: ClinicalTrials.gov records first submitted after the retraction that list the retracted paper among their references (1,669 people enrolled or planned). Later papers: distinct papers citing any of the 456 for any reason, among them 418 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 212 trials and 6 guidelines.
Free to share, with credit.
Download the image, paste the caption, or link to this page. Please credit SaneCite (sanecite.com). The numbers come from the open test result; nothing here is picked by hand.
- Which papers.The retracted papers named on our Papers list, ranked by how many citations made after the retraction use them as support.
- What counts as support.Three AI models judged every citation; every citation counted as support for these papers was then read again by AI models before publication, and the corrections were applied. Each citing paper is counted once.
- Where the rest comes from.Grants, publication types and later citations come from Europe PMC records; registered trials from ClinicalTrials.gov. A grant acknowledged by a citing paper did not necessarily pay for the part that leans on the retracted work.
- Reach, not harm.Later papers cite the citing papers for any reason, not only for this claim. Where we followed a chain by reading, the paper's entry on the Lists says what we found.
- Check it yourself.This chart's data · the reach records · each paper on the Lists.