ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2026
Diagnosing scientific replicability through probabilistic distinguishability.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationDespite the widely recognized importance of replicability in biological research, computational methods to quantify irreplicability and identify irreplicable instances remain underdeveloped. This article presents an efficient and robust computational framework to address this gap.
resultsTo tackle the challenge of defining an acceptable level of intrinsic heterogeneity among replicable studies, we introduce a distinguishability criterion, ensuring that replicable effects, while potentially heterogeneous, can be distinguished from zero effects and maintain consistent directions with high probability. We implement a Bayesian model criticism approach, reporting a Bayesian P-value to identify potential irreplicable instances. Through numerical experiments, we demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed methods in detecting batch effects in high-throughput experiments and identifying instances of the publication bias. Finally, we apply the framework to multi-tissue eQTL data from the GTEx consortium, uncovering tissue-specific eQTLs that represent biological heterogeneity across tissues. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: An R package DiscRep implementing our method is available on GitHub (https://github.com/PengWang96/DiscRep).
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.