Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32803129›Full record

ArticleGates open research2020

Internal replication of computational workflows in scientific research.

Jade Benjamin-Chung, John M Colford, Andrew Mertens, Alan E Hubbard, Benjamin F Arnold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gates open research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Key takeaways from Stanford's symposium on AI for Data Science.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jade Benjamin-ChungDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3631-3132
John M ColfordDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
Andrew MertensDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1050-6721
Alan E HubbardDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
Benjamin F ArnoldDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6105-7295

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Failures to reproduce research findings across scientific disciplines from psychology to physics have garnered increasing attention in recent years. External replication of published findings by outside investigators has emerged as a method to detect errors and bias in the published literature. However, some studies influence policy and practice before external replication efforts can confirm or challenge the original contributions. Uncovering and resolving errors before publication would increase the efficiency of the scientific process by increasing the accuracy of published evidence. Here we summarize the rationale and best practices for internal replication, a process in which multiple independent data analysts replicate an analysis and correct errors prior to publication. We explain how internal replication should reduce errors and bias that arise during data analyses and argue that it will be most effective when coupled with pre-specified hypotheses and analysis plans and performed with data analysts masked to experimental group assignments. By improving the reproducibility of published evidence, internal replication should contribute to more rapid scientific advances.

Indexed as

blindingcomputational workflowmaskingreplicationreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID32803129
PMCPMC7403855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.