Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Source study found

Story checked

This Week in Science: Poop Concrete, Hot Ice, And More! : ScienceAlert (opens in a new tab)

sciencealert.com · 2026-09-11

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mostly not supported

Mostly not supported.

5 key claims are not backed by the study.

  • 1 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 5 not supported

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mostly not supported

Six claims go beyond the study. One overstates it and five aren't supported at all.

  • 1 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 5 not supported
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

7 claims in this story

Showing all 7 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 7Not supportedScientists and researchers led by Raghuvesh Tiwari may have found that adding biochar made from human-poop slurry to concrete yields significant improvements in concrete properties.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated42% stronger

Why this verdict

The supplied paper profile is about upadacitinib for severe alopecia areata. It contains no evidence about human-poop-derived biochar, concrete strength, Raghuvesh Tiwari, or Scientific Reports concrete-property experiments.

Claim 2 of 7Not supportedScientists have demonstrated a new form of ice under pressures up to 2.3 million atmospheres and temperatures up to 2,630 kelvins.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedMore than 2,000 °C

Why this verdict

The supplied paper profile contains no evidence about creating or demonstrating a new form of ice under extreme pressure and heat. It is solely an abstract-level profile of alopecia areata trials of upadacitinib.

Claim 3 of 7Not supportedA new study in The Anatomical Record used high-resolution micro-CT scans to examine the spider-tailed horned viper inside for the first time.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The supplied paper profile contains no evidence about spider-tailed horned vipers, micro-CT scanning, or The Anatomical Record. It addresses only upadacitinib trials in alopecia areata.

Claim 4 of 7Not supportedA first human clinical trial of the CRISPR-based treatment CTX310 suggests it can lower LDL cholesterol by 52% and remain safe and effective a year later.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedby 52%

Why this verdict

The supplied paper profile contains no evidence about CTX310, CRISPR-based cholesterol-lowering therapy, LDL cholesterol reductions, or one-year safety/effectiveness. It is unrelated to this claim.

Claim 5 of 7Not supportedResearchers accidentally caused a methane leak beneath the South China Sea, and ocean life appears to have sealed it almost instantly, with an effective methane-consuming ecosystem forming within one to two years.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedwithin just one to two years

Why this verdict

The supplied paper profile contains no evidence about a methane leak in the South China Sea or formation of a methane-consuming ecosystem. It is unrelated to this claim.

Claim 6 of 7OverstatedIn two parallel phase 3 replicate randomized clinical trials, upadacitinib demonstrated a positive benefit-risk profile in adults and adolescents with severe alopecia areata.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedup to 100% of hair

Why this verdict

The paper profile supports the statement that two parallel phase 3 replicate randomized trials found a positive benefit-risk profile for upadacitinib in adolescents and adults with severe alopecia areata. However, the story metadata says the magnitude was stated as 'up to 100% of hair.' At abstract depth, the reported primary outcome is SALT score ≤20 at week 24, achieved by about 45% with 15 mg and 54%–55% with 30 mg versus 1.5%–3.4% with placebo; the abstract does not report a complete-regrowth magnitude. SALT=0 is listed among secondary endpoints, but no numerical secondary results are provided in the abstract. Thus the benefit-risk claim is supported, but the apparent complete-regrowth magnitude outruns the supplied abstract evidence.

1

Study evidence

In UP-AA1, 45.2% (122/270) of patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 55.0% (149/271) receiving 30 mg achieved SALT ≤20 at week 24 versus 1.5% (2/135) with placebo.15 mg: 45.2% vs 1.5% (absolute difference ~43.7%); 30 mg: 55.0% vs 1.5% (absolute difference ~53.5%).

“This global clinical program included 2 parallel phase 3 replicate randomized clinical trials (UP-AA1 and UP-AA2)”
2

Study evidence

The trial program prespecified a family of multiplicity-controlled secondary efficacy endpoints including clinician-reported eyebrow and eyelash improvements, earlier SALT responder timepoints (weeks 4, 8, 12), deeper responder thresholds (SALT ≤10 and SALT = 0 at week 24), PGI-C at weeks 4 and 24, and AA-specific HRQoL at week 24.

“Multiplicity-controlled secondary efficacy end points included achievement of improvements in clinician-reported outcomes for eyebrows and eyelashes; achievement of SALT scores of 20 or less at weeks 4, 8, and 12; achievement of SALT score of 10 or less; SALT score 0 at week 24; patients' global impression of change ... at weeks 4 and 24; and other AA-specific health-related quality of life measures at week 24.”
Claim 7 of 7SupportedAn arthritis drug regrows lost hair in a clinical trial, potentially providing a new treatment for alopecia.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The supplied paper profile supports the core claim that upadacitinib produced clinically meaningful scalp hair regrowth in two randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trials and that the authors view it as a potential effective treatment option for severe alopecia areata. The causal framing is appropriate for the randomized trial design. The profile does not independently verify the descriptor 'arthritis drug,' but that is ancillary to the paper-supported hair-regrowth claim.

1

Study evidence

In UP-AA1, 45.2% (122/270) of patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 55.0% (149/271) receiving 30 mg achieved SALT ≤20 at week 24 versus 1.5% (2/135) with placebo.15 mg: 45.2% vs 1.5% (absolute difference ~43.7%); 30 mg: 55.0% vs 1.5% (absolute difference ~53.5%).

“This global clinical program included 2 parallel phase 3 replicate randomized clinical trials (UP-AA1 and UP-AA2)”
2

Study evidence

The safety profile of both upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was reported as similar in adults and adolescents and consistent with prior approved indications; the authors state no new safety findings were identified.

“Both trials included a 24-week placebo-controlled, double-blinded treatment period (period A) and a 28-week blinded extension treatment period (period B).”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of SALT score ≤20 at week 24, not simply '100% hair regrowth.'

    The story broadly says the drug regrows lost hair and reports a magnitude of 'up to 100% of hair,' but the abstract-level paper profile reports the primary endpoint as SALT ≤20 at week 24. The distinction is material because SALT ≤20 indicates substantial remaining hair loss improvement, not necessarily complete regrowth.

    From Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials (replicate studies)

  • Primary endpoint results showed substantially higher responder proportions with upadacitinib than placebo: about 45% for 15 mg and 54%–55% for 30 mg versus 1.5%–3.4% for placebo across the two trials.

    The story conveys that hair regrowth occurred, but it does not reflect the actual primary endpoint proportions or placebo comparison. Instead, the supplied magnitude field suggests 'up to 100% of hair,' which is not the abstract-reported primary result.

    From Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials (replicate studies)

  • Secondary endpoints included eyebrow/eyelash clinician-reported outcomes, earlier SALT timepoints, SALT ≤10, SALT=0 at week 24, patient global impression, and AA-specific quality-of-life measures; the abstract does not provide numerical results for these secondary endpoints.

    The story does not reflect the secondary endpoint family or the abstract-level limitation that numerical secondary results are not provided. This matters particularly if the story’s 'up to 100% of hair' language relies on complete-regrowth outcomes, because the abstract does not quantify SALT=0 results.

    From Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trials (UP-AA1, UP-AA2)

  • Safety details include common treatment-emergent adverse events such as upper respiratory tract infection, acne, elevated creatine phosphokinase, and nasopharyngitis, and serious adverse events of 1.6% with 15 mg, 2.3% with 30 mg, and 0.4% with placebo.

    The story reflects the overall positive benefit-risk conclusion but does not mention the specific adverse events or the higher reported serious-adverse-event percentages in the active-treatment groups versus placebo.

    From Two parallel phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with a blinded extension

3 things the story did carry across
  • The paper evaluates upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg once daily versus placebo in two parallel replicate phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, UP-AA1 and UP-AA2.
  • The studied population was adolescents and adults aged 12 to under 64 years with severe alopecia areata, defined by baseline SALT score ≥50.
  • The paper reports a positive benefit-risk profile and no new safety findings, with safety described as consistent with approved indications.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

3

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

human in vivo

1Lead resulthuman in vivoEvaluate the efficacy of upadacitinib (15 mg and 30 mg once daily) vs placebo for achieving clinically meaningful scalp hair regrowth in adolescents and adults with severe alopecia areata at 24 weeks across two replicate phase 3 trials (UP-AA1 and UP-AA2).Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials (replicate studies)Expand

In plain English

Two parallel, replicate phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (UP-AA1 and UP-AA2) evaluated once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg versus placebo in adolescents and adults (age 12 to <64) with severe alopecia areata (baseline SALT ≥50). The multiplicity-controlled primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving a SALT score ≤20 at week 24. Both doses produced substantially higher proportions of patients reaching SALT ≤20 at week 24 compared with placebo in each trial (15 mg: ~45% vs 1.5%–3.4% placebo; 30 mg: ~54%–55% vs 1.5%–3.4% placebo). Safety findings were consistent with known profiles; no new safety signals reported in the abstract.

Key findings

  • In UP-AA1, 45.2% (122/270) of patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 55.0% (149/271) receiving 30 mg achieved SALT ≤20 at week 24 versus 1.5% (2/135) with placebo.15 mg: 45.2% vs 1.5% (absolute difference ~43.7%); 30 mg: 55.0% vs 1.5% (absolute difference ~53.5%).
  • In UP-AA2, 44.6% (129/289) of patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 54.3% (157/289) receiving 30 mg achieved SALT ≤20 at week 24 versus 3.4% (5/145) with placebo.15 mg: 44.6% vs 3.4% (absolute difference ~41.2%); 30 mg: 54.3% vs 3.4% (absolute difference ~50.9%).
“This global clinical program included 2 parallel phase 3 replicate randomized clinical trials (UP-AA1 and UP-AA2)”
What this piece can’t prove

3 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

2human in vivoEvaluate key secondary efficacy outcomes (eyebrows/eyelashes clinician-reported outcomes, earlier timepoints, deeper SALT thresholds, patient global impression, and AA-specific quality-of-life measures) for upadacitinib vs placebo through week 24 (with multiplicity control).Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trials (UP-AA1, UP-AA2)Expand

In plain English

UP-AA1 and UP-AA2 were two parallel phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg once daily versus placebo in adolescents and adults with severe alopecia areata. The appraisal unit covers multiplicity-controlled secondary efficacy endpoints through week 24, including clinician-reported eyebrow and eyelash outcomes, earlier SALT responder timepoints (weeks 4, 8, 12), deeper SALT thresholds (≤10 and 0), patient global impression of change (PGI-C) at weeks 4 and 24, and AA-specific health-related quality-of-life measures at week 24. The abstract states these secondary endpoints were multiplicity-controlled but does not report numeric results for these specific endpoints.

Key findings

  • The trial program prespecified a family of multiplicity-controlled secondary efficacy endpoints including clinician-reported eyebrow and eyelash improvements, earlier SALT responder timepoints (weeks 4, 8, 12), deeper responder thresholds (SALT ≤10 and SALT = 0 at week 24), PGI-C at weeks 4 and 24, and AA-specific HRQoL at week 24.
  • Primary endpoint (SALT ≤20 at week 24) results are reported in the abstract and show markedly higher responder proportions for both upadacitinib doses versus placebo; the secondary endpoints were evaluated within the same randomized arms and timeframe and subject to multiplicity control.
“Multiplicity-controlled secondary efficacy end points included achievement of improvements in clinician-reported outcomes for eyebrows and eyelashes; achievement of SALT scores of 20 or less at weeks 4, 8, and 12; achievement of SALT score of 10 or less; SALT score 0 at week 24; patients' global impression of change ... at weeks 4 and 24; and other AA-specific health-related quality of life measures at week 24.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Abstract does not specify the multiplicity control method (e.g., hierarchical testing order, alpha allocation, or adjustment procedure), nor does it provide detailed endpoint definitions (exact clinician-reported scoring for eyebrows/eyelashes or names of HRQoL instruments).

2 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

3human in vivoEvaluate safety and tolerability of upadacitinib (15 mg and 30 mg) vs placebo in adolescents and adults with severe alopecia areata during the placebo-controlled period and blinded extension.Two parallel phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with a blinded extensionExpand

In plain English

Abstracted safety and tolerability results from two parallel phase 3 randomized, double-blind trials (UP‑AA1, UP‑AA2) of once-daily upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg versus placebo in adolescents and adults with severe alopecia areata. Safety was assessed during a 24-week placebo-controlled period and a 28-week blinded extension; results are reported pooled across both trials. The safety profile was reported as similar between adolescents and adults and consistent with prior approved indications; no new safety signals were identified. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) >5% included upper respiratory tract infection, acne, elevated creatine phosphokinase, and nasopharyngitis. Reported treatment-emergent serious adverse event (SAE) counts across both studies were 9 (1.6%) for 15 mg, 13 (2.3%) for 30 mg, and 1 (0.4%) for placebo.

Key findings

  • The safety profile of both upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was reported as similar in adults and adolescents and consistent with prior approved indications; the authors state no new safety findings were identified.
  • Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by more than 5% of patients in any treatment group included upper respiratory tract infection, acne, elevated blood creatine phosphokinase, and nasopharyngitis.
“Both trials included a 24-week placebo-controlled, double-blinded treatment period (period A) and a 28-week blinded extension treatment period (period B).”
What this piece can’t prove

3 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref · 15 candidate papers

Candidate

Ivarmacitinib stimulates hair regrowth in severe alopecia areata

Medicom Conference Report AAD 2025 · 2025 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)

And 9 more candidates considered.