ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2019
False-positive pathology: improving reproducibility with the next generation of pathologists.
Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Amputation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Meta-Analysis and Validation of a Histopathology Scoring System.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2023Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence-enabled histological analysis in pre-clinical respiratory disease models: a scoping review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Article
- Assessment of spin within diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses published in top pathology journals: a cross-sectional study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- ClinSegNet: Towards Reliable and Enhanced Histopathology Screening.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- metaGEENOME: an integrated framework for differential abundance analysis of microbiome data in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- MetFinder: A Tool for Automated Quantitation of Metastatic Burden in Histological Sections From Preclinical Models.Pigment cell & melanoma research · 2025Article
- Therapeutic Applications of Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Article
- Classification of Mouse Lung Metastatic Tumor with Deep Learning.Biomolecules & therapeutics · 2022Article
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The external validity of the scientific literature has recently come into question, popularly referred to as the "reproducibility crisis." It is now generally acknowledged that too many false positive or non-reproducible results are being published throughout the biomedical and social science literature due to misaligned incentives and poor methodology. Pathology is likely no exception to this problem, and may be especially prone to false positives due to common observational methodologies used in our research. Spurious findings in pathology contribute inefficiency to the scientific literature and detrimentally influence patient care. In particular, false positives in pathology affect patients through biomarker development, prognostic classification, and cancer overdiagnosis. We discuss possible sources of non-reproducible pathology studies and describe practical ways our field can improve research habits, especially among trainees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31019290What 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.