ArticleCognitive neuroscience2017
Replication and innovation versus a perfect '.05'.
Article in Cognitive neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unresolved-Disorganized Attachment is Associated With Smaller Hippocampus and Increased Functional Connectivity Beyond Psychopathology.Journal of traumatic stress · 2019Article
- Mentalization and the left inferior frontal gyrus and insula.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Slotnick (this issue) makes a strong case that any attempt to assess the reliabiltiy of statistical correction procedures should use truly random data. In addition, however, there is an important side effect of the over-reliance on any given threshold to determine the worth of an experiment. Placing too much faith in any method of correction obscures the point that replication across labs remains a most critical part of scientific study. Especially for expensive methods, such as fMRI, an overemphasis on increasingly conservative thresholds can negatively impact the potential for replication of studies and the pursuit and reporting of innovative results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28266240What 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.