ReviewInternational journal of medical sciences2018
While it is not deliberate, much of today's biomedical research contains logical and technical flaws, showing a need for corrective action.
Review in International journal of medical sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updating mRNA variants of the human RSK4 gene and their expression in different stressed situations.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Mutation or not, what directly establishes a neoplastic state, namely cellular immortality and autonomy, still remains unknown and should be prioritized in our research.Journal of Cancer · 2022Review
- At elevated temperatures, heat shock protein genes show altered ratios of different RNAs and expression of new RNAs, including several novel HSPB1 mRNAs encoding HSP27 protein isoforms.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
- ACTB and GAPDH appear at multiple SDS-PAGE positions, thus not suitable as reference genes for determining protein loading in techniques like Western blotting.Open life sciences · 2021Article
- About three-fourths of mouse proteins unexpectedly appear at a low position of SDS-PAGE, often as additional isoforms, questioning whether all protein isoforms have been eliminated in gene-knockout cells or organisms.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2020Article
- Evidence for immortality and autonomy in animal cancer models is often not provided, which causes confusion on key issues of cancer biology.Journal of Cancer · 2020Review
- High Fidelity of Mouse Models Mimicking Human Genetic Skeletal Disorders.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomedical research has advanced swiftly in recent decades, largely due to progress in biotechnology. However, this rapid spread of new, and not always-fully understood, technology has also created a lot of false or irreproducible data and artifacts, which sometimes have led to erroneous conclusions. When describing various scientific issues, scientists have developed a habit of saying "on one hand… but on the other hand…", because discrepant data and conclusions have become omnipresent. One reason for this problematic situation is that we are not always thoughtful enough in study design, and sometimes lack enough philosophical contemplation. Another major reason is that we are too rushed in introducing new technology into our research without assimilating technical details. In this essay, we provide examples in different research realms to justify our points. To help readers test their own weaknesses, we raise questions on technical details of RNA reverse transcription, polymerase chain reactions, western blotting and immunohistochemical staining, as these methods are basic and are the base for other modern biotechnologies. Hopefully, after contemplation and reflection on these questions, readers will agree that we indeed know too little about these basic techniques, especially about the artifacts they may create, and thus many conclusions drawn from the studies using those ever-more-sophisticated techniques may be even more problematic.
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.