ArticlePLoS biology2018
Analysis validation has been neglected in the Age of Reproducibility.
Article in PLoS biology, 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.
- Simulation Tests of Methods in Evolution, Ecology, and Systematics: Pitfalls, Progress, and Principles.Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics · 2022Article
- Seeing the forest for the trees: Assessing genetic offset predictions from gradient forest.Evolutionary applications · 2022Article
- A Simulation Study of the Ecological Speciation Conditions in the Galician Marine SnailFrontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Introduction to statistical simulations in health research.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Defining and Evaluating Microbial Contributions to Metabolite Variation in Microbiome-Metabolome Association Studies.mSystems · 2019Article
- The Effect of Neutral Recombination Variation on Genome Scans for Selection.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2019Article
- Preparing next-generation scientists for biomedical big data: artificial intelligence approaches.Personalized medicine · 2019Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increasingly complex statistical models are being used for the analysis of biological data. Recent commentary has focused on the ability to compute the same outcome for a given dataset (reproducibility). We argue that a reproducible statistical analysis is not necessarily valid because of unique patterns of nonindependence in every biological dataset. We advocate that analyses should be evaluated with known-truth simulations that capture biological reality, a process we call "analysis validation." We review the process of validation and suggest criteria that a validation project should meet. We find that different fields of science have historically failed to meet all criteria, and we suggest ways to implement meaningful validation in training and practice.
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.