ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2013
Scientific research in the age of omics: the good, the bad, and the sloppy.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative meta-analysis of prognostic gene signatures for late-stage ovarian cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2014Pooled it
- Article
- Transcriptomics in Toxicogenomics, Part II: Preprocessing and Differential Expression Analysis for High Quality Data.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Making simulation results reproducible-Survey, guidelines, and examples based on Gradle and Docker.PeerJ. Computer science · 2019Article
- Distinct Antigen Delivery Systems Induce Dendritic Cells' Divergent Transcriptional Response: New Insights from a Comparative and Reproducible Computational Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Article
- Discovery of A-type procyanidin dimers in yellow raspberries by untargeted metabolomics and correlation based data analysis.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2016Article
- How to make more published research true.PLoS medicine · 2014Article
- Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis.Lancet (London, England) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been claimed that most research findings are false, and it is known that large-scale studies involving omics data are especially prone to errors in design, execution, and analysis. The situation is alarming because taxpayer dollars fund a substantial amount of biomedical research, and because the publication of a research article that is later determined to be flawed can erode the credibility of an entire field, resulting in a severe and negative impact for years to come. Here, we urge the development of an online, open-access, postpublication, peer review system that will increase the accountability of scientists for the quality of their research and the ability of readers to distinguish good from sloppy science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.