Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33710326›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2021

A research parasite's perspective on establishing a baseline to avoid errors in secondary analyses.

Ayush T Raman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2021. 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. Article
  2. Maximizing the utility of public data.Frontiers in genetics · 2023
    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

1 author.

Ayush T RamanBroad Institute of MIT and Harvard, 75 Ames St, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To enhance reproducibility in scientific research, more and more datasets are becoming publicly available so that researchers can perform secondary analyses to investigate questions the original scientists had not posited. This increases the return on investment for the NIH and other funding bodies. These datasets, however, are not perfect, and a better understanding of the assumptions that shaped them is required. The 2020 Junior Research Parasite Award recognized our work that showed that the signal-to-noise ratio in a particular dataset had not been investigated, leading to an erroneous conclusion in the original research. In this commentary, I share the process that led to the identification of the problem and hopefully provide useful lessons for other research parasites.

Indexed as

ParasitesAnimalsHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID33710326
PMCPMC7953484

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.