ArticlePLoS biology2025
Explosion of formulaic research articles, including inappropriate study designs and false discoveries, based on the NHANES US national health database.
Article in PLoS biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adiposity and cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Nature metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- TOP 2025: An update to the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: Disclosure of Generative AI Usage in Biomedical Academic Writings Should Be Mandatory and Comprehensive.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Resting heart rate and long-term mortality in young adults: a population-based cohort study.Open heart · 2026Article
- Epidemiological Alchemy in the AI Era Comes Under Close Scrutiny-But Is It Entirely Without Meaning?Journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Why biology must prioritize data reanalysis in the era of artificial intelligence.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Exploring the application of Artificial Intelligence in palliative care and its practical, technical and ethical considerations: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Evidence of unreliable data and poor data provenance in clinical prediction model research and clinical practice.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- What breaks when federal commitments break: comment on Beccia et al.SSM. Mental health · 2026Article
- An Exploration of Machine Learning Methods in Human Biomonitoring.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Quantifying new threats to health and biomedical literature integrity from rapidly scaled publications and problematic research.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Journal of Global Health's GUidelines for Authors on Requesting and DIsclosing changes in Authorship Nominations (GUARDIAN).Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Target trial emulation: bridging observational studies and randomized trials for health decision-making.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- An atlas of exposome-phenome associations in health and disease risk.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- An LLM-assisted framework for accelerated and verifiable clinical hypothesis testing from electronic health records.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Most science is published from countries lacking in democracy and freedom of press.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Is scientific reform an unwinnable arms race?PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Association between air pollution, multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Dramatic increases in redundant publications in the Generative AI era.BMC medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the growth of artificial intelligence (AI)-ready datasets such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), new opportunities for data-driven research are being created, but also generating risks of data exploitation by paper mills. In this work, we focus on two areas of potential concern for AI-supported research efforts. First, we describe the production of large numbers of formulaic single-factor analyses, relating single predictors to specific health conditions, where multifactorial approaches would be more appropriate. Employing AI-supported single-factor approaches removes context from research, fails to capture interactions, avoids false discovery correction, and is an approach that can easily be adopted by paper mills. Second, we identify risks of selective data usage, such as analyzing limited date ranges or cohort subsets without clear justification, suggestive of data dredging, and post-hoc hypothesis formation. Using a systematic literature search for single-factor analyses, we identified 341 NHANES-derived research papers published over the past decade, each proposing an association between a predictor and a health condition from the wide range contained within NHANES. We found evidence that research failed to take account of multifactorial relationships, that manuscripts did not account for the risks of false discoveries, and that researchers selectively extracted data from NHANES rather than utilizing the full range of data available. Given the explosion of AI-assisted productivity in published manuscripts (the systematic search strategy used here identified an average of 4 papers per annum from 2014 to 2021, but 190 in 2024-9 October alone), we highlight a set of best practices to address these concerns, aimed at researchers, data controllers, publishers, and peer reviewers, to encourage improved statistical practices and mitigate the risks of paper mills using AI-assisted workflows to introduce low-quality manuscripts to the scientific literature.
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.