ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Transparency and Reproducibility in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Transparency can build trust in the scientific process, but scientific findings can be undermined by poor and obscure data use and reporting practices. The purpose of this work is to report how data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study has been used to date, and to provide practical recommendations on how to improve the transparency and reproducibility of findings. Methods: Articles published from 2017 to 2023 that used ABCD Study data were reviewed using more than 30 data extraction items to gather information on data use practices. Total frequencies were reported for each extraction item, along with computation of a Level of Completeness (LOC) score that represented overall endorsement of extraction items. Univariate linear regression models were used to examine the correlation between LOC scores and individual extraction items. Post hoc analysis included examination of whether LOC scores were correlated with the logged 2-year journal impact factor. Results: There were 549 full-length articles included in the main analysis. Analytic scripts were shared in 30% of full-length articles. The number of participants excluded due to missing data was reported in 60% of articles, and information on missing data for individual variables (e.g., household income) was provided in 38% of articles. A table describing the analytic sample was included in 83% of articles. A race and/or ethnicity variable was included in 78% of reviewed articles, while its inclusion was justified in only 41% of these articles. LOC scores were highly correlated with extraction items related to examination of missing data. A bottom 10% of LOC score was significantly correlated with a lower logged journal impact factor when compared to the top 10% of LOC scores (β=-0.77, 95% -1.02, -0.51; Conclusion: These findings highlight opportunities for improvement in future papers using ABCD Study data to readily adapt analytic practices for better transparency and reproducibility efforts. A list of recommendations is provided to facilitate adherence in future research.
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.