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
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
PI Pressure RT @NatRevDrugDisc: Amgen only able to reproduce 11% of landmark papers http://t.co/qWUB3b4B ; Bayer too http://t.co/Uw6tPqCP
RT @CBC_excimer: wow. RT @NatRevDrugDisc: Amgen only able to reproduce 11% of landmark papers http://t.co/ohNDBl2k ; Bayer too http://t.co/dzwmdDxy
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
wow. RT @NatRevDrugDisc: Amgen only able to reproduce 11% of landmark papers http://t.co/ohNDBl2k ; Bayer too http://t.co/dzwmdDxy
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
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
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 @NatureMagazine: Related to the Editorial on sloppy science: http://t.co/vXt14lUu Comment on standards for preclinical cancer research: http://t.co/laeyVMWA
Related to the Editorial on sloppy science: http://t.co/vXt14lUu Comment on standards for preclinical cancer research: http://t.co/laeyVMWA
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/xQiCsiNI
また確かにnegative resultsも重要な情報ってのには同感。が、現状Journal of Negative Resultsを食い入る様に読んだりしてないあたり、実際にそういうデータベースが出た時どこまで積極的に利用するかは謎だが。http://t.co/HHjE0vrq
http://t.co/ZEmOatZR "funding agencies, reviewers and journal editors must agree that negative data.. as informative as positive data."
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research - http://t.co/oz2OatD9:... http://t.co/6WUJgFty #clinical trials
only 6/53 landmark #cancer trials reproducible, yet therapeutic potential of #diet dismissed for lack of evidence? http://t.co/nt4BzLHZ #EBM
More and better replications needed for preclinical cancer research to succeed, in @NatureMagazine http://t.co/ACB0XZzs
Only 6 out of 53 'landmark' pre-clinical cancer drug studies able to be replicated- @NatureNews editorial. #depressing http://t.co/d1adWM7k
Interesting Comment in @NatureMagazine: large % of preclinical cancer studies don't hold up; what can we do about it? http://t.co/z5gJDBTb
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/SaQJJPtU
Preclinical cancer research: not good enough say Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis in @NatureMagazine: http://t.co/KBWbIp7W
RT @dave_bridges: this @NatureMagazine editorial on reproducibility is fantastic http://t.co/m3tWjde8 and http://t.co/QLcqjOmD also reflects badly on science
this @NatureMagazine editorial on reproducibility is fantastic http://t.co/m3tWjde8 and http://t.co/QLcqjOmD also reflects badly on science