ArticleiScience2023
Do we really measure what we think we are measuring?
Article in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Optical and neural contributions to contrast sensitivity: A factor analysis of individual differences with and without adaptive optics.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- State Optimism as a State-Dependent Prior About Rewarding Outcomes.Computational brain & behavior · 2026Article
- Current Practices for Mental Fatigue Quantification and Induction in Movement Science: Introducing the SPeCIFY Guidelines.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Decoding of image properties from single-trial visual evoked potentials recorded by ultra-high-density EEG.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Intact Serial Dependence in Schizophrenia: Evidence from an Orientation Adjustment Task.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2025Article
- Testing the convergent validity, domain generality, and temporal stability of selected measures of people's tendency to explore.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tests used in the empirical sciences are often (implicitly) assumed to be representative of a given research question in the sense that similar tests should lead to similar results. Here, we show that this assumption is not always valid. We illustrate our argument with the example of resting-state electroencephalogram (EEG). We used multiple analysis methods, contrary to typical EEG studies where one analysis method is used. We found, first, that many EEG features correlated significantly with cognitive tasks. However, these EEG features correlated weakly with each other. Similarly, in a second analysis, we found that many EEG features were significantly different in older compared to younger participants. When we compared these EEG features pairwise, we did not find strong correlations. In addition, EEG features predicted cognitive tasks poorly as shown by cross-validated regression analysis. We discuss several explanations of these results.
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.