Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40338847›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2025

Explosion of formulaic research articles, including inappropriate study designs and false discoveries, based on the NHANES US national health database.

Tulsi Suchak, Anietie E Aliu, Charlie Harrison, Reyer Zwiggelaar, Nophar Geifman, Matt Spick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. An Exploration of Machine Learning Methods in Human Biomonitoring.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tulsi SuchakSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Anietie E AliuSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Charlie HarrisonDepartment of Computer Science, Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion, United Kingdom.
Reyer ZwiggelaarDepartment of Computer Science, Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion, United Kingdom.
Nophar GeifmanSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Matt SpickSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9417-6511

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Nutrition SurveysResearch DesignArtificial IntelligenceDatabases, FactualHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40338847
PMCPMC12061153

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.