Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research : Nature : Nature Publishing Group http://t.co/X1wpjjD6JH
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research : Nature : Nature Publishing Group http://t.co/CTYIuCn8a0
Turns out a lot of my favorite #polisci and #econ research replicates much more effectively than molecular biology. http://t.co/fGSrexItN8
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/CJxRlGGZvZ
Nature commentary: "Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research" http://t.co/srhjMslcqC
Scientists in oncology fail to reproduce 47 of 53 highly promising results in the past decade http://t.co/ovDVXYzdRI #meded #ethics
Scientists in oncology fail to reproduce 47 of 53 highly promising results in the past decade http://t.co/ovDVXYzdRI #meded #ethics
Scientists in oncology fail to reproduce 47 of 53 highly promising results in the past decade http://t.co/ovDVXYzdRI #meded #ethics
Scientists in oncology fail to reproduce 47 of 53 highly promising results in the past decade http://t.co/ovDVXYzdRI #meded #ethics
アムジェン社(バイオ医薬品メーカー)が注目した画期的論文53本のうち、わずか6本(11%)しか再現性が取れなかった。 http://t.co/Rj0eSr4j8l
アムジェン社(バイオ医薬品メーカー)が注目した画期的論文53本のうち、わずか6本(11%)しか再現性が取れなかった。 http://t.co/Rj0eSr4j8l
アムジェン社(バイオ医薬品メーカー)が注目した画期的論文53本のうち、わずか6本(11%)しか再現性が取れなかった。 http://t.co/Rj0eSr4j8l
アムジェン社(バイオ医薬品メーカー)が注目した画期的論文53本のうち、わずか6本(11%)しか再現性が取れなかった。 http://t.co/Rj0eSr4j8l
アムジェン社(バイオ医薬品メーカー)が注目した画期的論文53本のうち、わずか6本(11%)しか再現性が取れなかった。 http://t.co/Rj0eSr4j8l
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research : Nature : Nature Publishing Group http://t.co/CO2hvWsBrw
Only 6 out of 53 landmark pre-clinical cancer trials were confirmed http://t.co/yfioMqRjQ9
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/NWapP7412X 11% reproducibility! Wow!
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/NWapP7412X 11% reproducibility! Wow! http://t.co/Xwy8WnFm4b
“@nickbrookMD: RT @doctordoubter: Problems with cancer research: 89% of it is not reproducible (Begley, Nature, '12) http://t.co/IRcbzSlSlD”
“@nickbrookMD: RT @doctordoubter: Problems with cancer research: 89% of it is not reproducible (Begley, Nature, '12) http://t.co/IRcbzSlSlD”
RT @doctordoubter: Problems with cancer research: 89% of it is not reproducible (Begley, Nature, 2012) http://t.co/XdmKesQ5VR
Problems with cancer research: 89% of it is not reproducible (Begley, Nature, 2012) http://t.co/U5PU93luqY
Problems with cancer research: 89% of it is not reproducible (Begley, Nature, 2012) http://t.co/U5PU93luqY
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/Pzse4sGPiZ // Cuanto fármaco para el cáncer que sirve de nada
@Callaicus Artículo de Nature Marzo 2012 que levantó la polémica sobre las inadecuadas investigaciones del Cáncer http://t.co/rzmMxHJrsS
"89% van resultaten kankeronderzoek kan niet gereproduceerd worden" http://t.co/L4inzRVoIB onwetenschappelijke #wetenschap
"89% van resultaten kankeronderzoek kan niet gereproduceerd worden" http://t.co/L4inzRVoIB onwetenschappelijke #wetenschap
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/9s8iIUiGUj
Do standards of preclinical cancer research need to be raised? http://t.co/cax4eweKLm
Fresh medical research outrage - only 11% of 'breakthrough' cancer trials have been sucessfully replicated http://t.co/kHlWnQmlbK
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research : Nature : Nature Publishing Group http://t.co/auP8UrxjWa
Be skeptical of science breakthroughs: out of 56 "landmark" cancer studies, only 6 were later validated. http://t.co/DUBrQFf69E
Försök att reproducera pre-klinisk cancerforskning: "scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases": http://t.co/oWKfwfWKyy
What reasons underlie the publication of erroneous, selective or irreproducible data? The academic system and... http://t.co/HibDW3JVeX
#alltrials also important for pre-clinical studies http://t.co/nDlUsuUhI6 @bengoldacre
Worrisome 2012 @NatureNews article: Out of 53 "landmark" cancer studies, only 6 (=11%) reproducible http://t.co/ozNkIwizb8 (via @kodisha)
Worrisome 2012 @NatureNews article: Out of 53 "landmark" cancer studies, only 6 (=11%) reproducible http://t.co/ozNkIwizb8 (via @kodisha)
Interesting! Calls to question the "reproducibility" in the current scientific method: http://t.co/IgcCXRRi7F via http://t.co/QozAhmEObL
Scientific findings reproducible in only 11% of published preclinical oncology studies: http://t.co/3lJQ7b3FvO (http://t.co/18Ofwutvca)
OA was yesterday. The research data itself needs to be accessible: Just 11% of 53 cancer research papers reproducible http://t.co/2S5wRjrIAn
Scientific findings were confirmed in only 11% of preclinical peer-reviewed oncology research. http://t.co/uo4E7PinbA
more details here.. http://t.co/5bKSs5GrNw http://t.co/6qkXgxhNhG
Just 11% of 53 cancer studies were reproducable http://t.co/1A3foJn9bn We need better science-based medical research
In a review of 53 preclinical cancer 'landmark' studies, only 6 could be confirmed. "... this was a shocking result." http://t.co/APMpkVPdYt
In a review of 53 preclinical cancer 'landmark' studies, only 6 could be confirmed. "... this was a shocking result." http://t.co/d3zv9BRVsx
Nature, C. Glenn Begley, Lee M. Ellis: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. http://t.co/NXEUjqj8Pv
Of interest: Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research : Nature : Nature Publishing Group http://t.co/A8sNJ6APUM
Wigzells referenser om problemen som finns: http://t.co/tmVhqKTK3y och http://t.co/xyGs0P8MbZ
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/C2P3Mw2NBu
@egolluscio Overall problem may be rooted much deeper than clinical trials, see editorial re: preclinical studies http://t.co/UZUNKSWjhL
“@toryeducation: If studies so unreliable in medicine (http://t.co/5LBbpVr5) how much more true of education research?” But see Gove
If studies so unreliable in medicine (http://t.co/5NKTIu2n) how much more true of education research?
If studies so unreliable in medicine (http://t.co/5NKTIu2n) how much more true of education research?
Of 53 early laboratory studies of promising targets for treating cancer, only six could be replicated. http://t.co/2lzUbMpG
RT @anitawaard: TIm Clark now on how evidence for claims is found - citing Begley & Ellis 2012 http://t.co/A1ovzWqQ #vcell
RT @anitawaard: TIm Clark now on how evidence for claims is found - citing Begley & Ellis 2012 http://t.co/fGBaDXss #vcell
TIm Clark now on how evidence for claims is found - citing Begley & Ellis 2012 http://t.co/8lr29RIq #vcell
A pharmaceutical company (Amgen) attempted to replicate 53 "landmark" oncology studies; only 6 were successful- http://t.co/gZp48qQS
@laurenkwolf See the Amgen "irreproducible studies" paper. http://t.co/EYR7xEoh
@hapsci @sjayanthi @deborahblum Usually referred to as Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) http://t.co/aGgAyuYE
@WvSchaik @hapsci @mjrobbins @deborahblum Great discussion. Begley/Ellis paper relevant here re: expense http://t.co/aGgAyuYE
@CheapassFiction @Litopia Fundamental question for public policy. It has two main references; one is behind a paywall! http://t.co/hoJjNHYM
@earthcrisis It is wise to check the source: http://t.co/PSEQH678 (check out the comments from peer scientists) @biohazarddfl
Study shows only six of 53 ‘landmark studies’ in preclinical cancer research could be replicated (http://t.co/K777KXu5)
Reproducibility of research findings: 6 of 53... :/ http://t.co/xGvdBLOv
Är det bara inom cancerfältet som man inte kan upprepa publicerade experiment? http://t.co/PAobhgEW http://t.co/gEBadNlx #forskning
RT @GBSIorg: Research standards for cancer must be raised if patients are to benefit: http://t.co/2K29bKNx (sub. req.) #CancerResearch #DrugDevelopment
Research standards for cancer must be raised if patients are to benefit: http://t.co/2K29bKNx (sub. req.) #CancerResearch #DrugDevelopment
Was surprised about size of this problem: repeatablity of preclinical studies v poor, esp in cancer http://t.co/omnWJ5GM More rigour needed
Of 50 landmark paper in oncology, Amgen and Bayer could reproduce respectively 11 and 21%. Makes you think! http://t.co/0Cy37mEF
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/b3TZAYzr
De cada 100 papers en top journals que describen nuevas terapias antitumorales, sólo se pueden reproducir 10 http://t.co/OgaXMTM6
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research ...: C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis propose ... http://t.co/gs0u3VGS
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research ...: C. Glenn Begley and Lee M. Ellis propose ... http://t.co/WxNd2cx0
Do the standards for preclinical cancer research need to be raised? Comment in Nature says yes, they do. http://t.co/3wtXBcdx
Reasons behind the high failure rate in translational cancer research: need for action! http://t.co/VOt9WWQG
47 / 53 recent landmark cancer studies not reproducible? (not reproduced) http://t.co/uBtensy0
Fifty-three papers were deemed 'landmark' studies...scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. http://t.co/z1bHwLhk @egabbert
Scary paper in Nature:- http://t.co/byxLnZk7 Many key, basic science lab reults cannot be replicated. Pushes drug discovery costs up a lot!
Hmm. 47 of 53 'landmark' results in cancer research not reproducible? Begley and Ellis writing in Nature http://t.co/4IrPvxTf
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/7bdMfQZi
Amgen found that only 6/53 (11%) of "landmark studies" on cancer were reproducible. #nature @reason http://t.co/KkTSafjP
Reproducibility in cancer research: what do we need to change? http://t.co/5ezGbVcP
Please "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research"! and do not waste the huge amount of fundings you get! http://t.co/LcIxFS87
If the standard for preclinical research is this low - http://t.co/lPKaLQoD, I'm skeptical on the value IBM's Watson will have in the clinic
47 of 53 cancer studies can't be replicated (http://t.co/TOdu8iX8) and yet also (http://t.co/97PQNhk8) in the same week. sigh.
RT @NatRevDrugDisc: Amgen only able to reproduce 11% of landmark papers http://t.co/yciL232g ; Bayer had similar findings in NRDD last year http://t.co/nKMY5PbT
A great article to read on hope for the future of cancer research http://t.co/CAmhAbJk
"A significant contributor to failure in oncology trials is the quality of published preclinical data" http://t.co/BqeMz6gF
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research - http://t.co/VXgiQjO6 http://t.co/mwLaF8wy
@pensieroETICO @cancercontrib "In cancer, many "discoveries" don't hold up": ecco l'articolo su Nature http://t.co/6gBR5b7Q: paradossale!
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/0KEo1PKU
RT @NatureMagazine: Related to the Editorial on sloppy science: http://t.co/vXt14lUu Comment on standards for preclinical cancer research: http://t.co/laeyVMWA
@NatureMagazine is asking $32 for very important comment on reproducibility problem in cancer research. This is a shame http://t.co/FjhLi0n5
"Allow for imperfect stories" Strong comments on raising stds for preclinical research, esp. via journal requirements http://t.co/rs58Cg13
RT @phildash: Interesting article in Nature this week about the need to improve pre-clinical cancer research http://t.co/pu2CysQ2
RT @NatRevDrugDisc: Amgen only able to reproduce 11% of landmark papers http://t.co/yciL232g ; Bayer had similar findings in NRDD last year http://t.co/nKMY5PbT
The results of only one in ten published preclinical cancer research "landmark" studies can be confirmed. http://t.co/RXgTZx0G
RT @NatRevDrugDisc: Amgen only able to reproduce 11% of landmark papers http://t.co/yciL232g ; Bayer had similar findings in NRDD last year http://t.co/nKMY5PbT
RT @NatRevDrugDisc: Amgen only able to reproduce 11% of landmark papers http://t.co/yciL232g ; Bayer had similar findings in NRDD last year http://t.co/nKMY5PbT