ArticleCancer research2014
The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research.
Article in Cancer research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.
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
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reproducible detection of antigen-specific T cells and Tregs via standardized and automated activation-induced marker assay workflows.Cell reports methods · 2026Article
- Publishing gold standard science.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025Article
- qByte: An open-source isothermal fluorimeter for democratizing analysis of nucleic acids, proteins and cells.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Characterization of 53 Multiplexed Targeted Proteomics Assays for Verification Studies in Cancer Cell Lines.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- ECBD: European chemical biology database.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Standardization to Characterize the Complexity of Vessel Network Using the Aortic Ring Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Assessing and mitigating batch effects in large-scale omics studies.Genome biology · 2024Review
- Building living systematic reviews and reporting standards for comparative microscopic analysis of white diseases in hard corals.Ecology and evolution · 2024Review
- Toward a common standard for data and specimen provenance in life sciences.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- How to think about and do successful research What you probable did not learn when you first entered the laboratory.FEMS yeast research · 2023Article
- Integrated analysis of circulating cell free nucleic acids for cancer genotyping and immune phenotyping of tumor microenvironment.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency in Shared Research Resources: Follow-Up Survey and Recommendations for Improvements.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2022Article
- Blind spots on western blots: Assessment of common problems in western blot figures and methods reporting with recommendations to improve them.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Current challenges and best practices for cell-free long RNA biomarker discovery.Biomarker research · 2022Review
- Lightweight Distributed Provenance Model for Complex Real-world Environments.Scientific data · 2022Article
- A 3D-printable device allowing fast and reproducible longitudinal preparation of mouse intestines.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2022Article
- The African Female Breast Cancer Epidemiology Study Protocol.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- New Challenges for Biobanks: Accreditation to the New ISO 20387:2018 Standard Specific for Biobanks.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021Article
- Lack of parent-of-origin effects in Nasonia jewel wasp: A replication and extension study.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Review of the Scientific Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency Studies Conducted by the ABRF Research Groups.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research advances build upon the validity and reproducibility of previously published data and findings. Yet irreproducibility in basic biologic and preclinical research is pervasive in both academic and commercial settings. Lack of reproducibility has led to invalidated research breakthroughs, retracted articles, and aborted clinical trials. Concerns and requirements for transparent, reproducible, and translatable research are accelerated by the rapid growth of "post-publication peer review," open access publishing, and data sharing that facilitate the identification of irreproducible data/studies; they are magnified by the explosion of high-throughput technologies, genomics, and other data-intensive disciplines. Collectively, these changes and challenges are decreasing the effectiveness of traditional research quality mechanisms and are contributing to unacceptable-and unsustainable-levels of irreproducibility. The global oncology and basic biologic research communities can no longer tolerate or afford widespread irreproducible research. This article discusses (i) how irreproducibility in preclinical research can ultimately be traced to an absence of a unifying life science standards framework, and (ii) makes an urgent case for the expanded development and use of consensus-based standards to both enhance reproducibility and drive innovations in cancer research.
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.