Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39438140›Full record

RevieweNeuro2024

Stop Fooling Yourself! (Diagnosing and Treating Confirmation Bias).

Richard T Born

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in eNeuro, 2024. 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. Review
  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

1 author.

Richard T BornDepartment of Neurobiology, Blavatnik Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115 richard_born@hms.harvard.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4360-427X

Funding

Mind the Gap: Addressing "Missing Pieces" in Neuroscience Curricula to Reinforce Research RigorUE5NS128294 · NINDS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI BORN, RICHARD T, TAN, TARALYN MARIE · 2022 to 2024
$258k
NINDS NIH HHS UE5 NS128294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Confirmation bias (CB) is a cognitive bias that allows us to fool ourselves by selectively filtering data and distorting analyses to support favored beliefs or hypotheses. In this article, I will briefly review some classic experiments from cognitive psychology that illustrate what a powerful, pernicious, and insidious force CB is. I will then discuss how to recognize CB in our own thinking and behavior and describe specific elements of good experimental design that can mitigate its effects. These elements-such as randomization and blinding-are conceptually straightforward but often difficult in practice and therefore not as widely implemented as they should be.

Indexed as

BiasHumansResearch Designblindingcognitive biasconfirmation biasexperimental designmaskingrandomization

Identifiers

PMID39438140
PMCPMC11495861

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.