Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research https://t.co/P7CfWBytAV
@R_H_Ebright Thanks for your reply. Neither of these preclinical/biomedical papers are accurate? https://t.co/s2Iyv8czch https://t.co/OPmLuxmd2f
@olijrobinson More but pre/clinical handoff failures R just 1 possibly minor cause https://t.co/6kcMsu5xGP https://t.co/Yby08vjHNq https://t.co/HyXCBM9Bjp
@JimJohnsonSci @jtleek Blaming it on 'glam pubs' (Nature?) going too far, biggest critics are consumers of studies. https://t.co/GHEjxU6inW
RT @JasonDeKoning: 47 / 53 recent landmark cancer studies not reproducible? (not reproduced) http://t.co/uBtensy0
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research https://t.co/nFnqebalWx
Par exemple, un groupe a répliqué 53 études sur le cancer et n'a obtenu les mêmes résultats pour 6 seulement (!) (https://t.co/DnmVMvXyDj)
https://t.co/ySZzhFVKyl https://t.co/g8xrQFndPh https://t.co/uPnITN335C https://t.co/Ktksm3UVLY evidenced based! @DrNadolsky @TheAlanAragon
@ara_p Science and evidence is complicated right now. For example, https://t.co/hwF7CTKt2G (search for “11%” to get gist)
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research https://t.co/CACYEgQvDD via @NatureNews
RT @drcbsteer: Drug development Call to raise standards of preclinical cancer research. Remember patients are at centre of efforts https://…
Drug development Call to raise standards of preclinical cancer research. Remember patients are at centre of efforts https://t.co/GGVwL7a5HH
#DrugDevelopment: Raise standards for #preclinical #CancerResearch https://t.co/oyM3U8EtWq | via @NatureNews
Citing https://t.co/9SiB5JWmS7 - itself not reproducible because nobody knows what they really did - https://t.co/eKUVhTLvxL via @NatureNews
Preclinical research generates many secondary publications, even when results cannot be reproduced #MedicalFraud https://t.co/KQ6gPPP1XH
RT @djriese2: Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research https://t.co/5eLn5xkXp9
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research https://t.co/5eLn5xkXp9
#Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical #cancer #research. #Pharma https://t.co/c00O757FUh
Drug development: Need to rRaise standards for preclinical cancer research : https://t.co/c00O757FUh
RT @irynakuchma: "85% of preclinical studies couldn't be replicated": https://t.co/ZGYYJBHinm - @ppandelis #coar16
RT @irynakuchma: "85% of preclinical studies couldn't be replicated": https://t.co/ZGYYJBHinm - @ppandelis #coar16
"85% of preclinical studies couldn't be replicated": https://t.co/ZGYYJBHinm - @ppandelis #coar16
@ezraklein Not just a psychology issue: https://t.co/zwV5ywE2N8
RT @JuanGrvas: Pseudociencia médica. No se pueden reproducir el 89% de los trabajos clave publicados en tratamiento cáncer. https://t.co/qV…
RT @JuanGrvas: Pseudociencia médica. No se pueden reproducir el 89% de los trabajos clave publicados en tratamiento cáncer. https://t.co/qV…
RT @JuanGrvas: Pseudociencia médica. No se pueden reproducir el 89% de los trabajos clave publicados en tratamiento cáncer. https://t.co/qV…
RT @JuanGrvas: Pseudociencia médica. No se pueden reproducir el 89% de los trabajos clave publicados en tratamiento cáncer. https://t.co/qV…
RT @JuanGrvas: Pseudociencia médica. No se pueden reproducir el 89% de los trabajos clave publicados en tratamiento cáncer. https://t.co/qV…
Pseudociencia médica. No se pueden reproducir el 89% de los trabajos clave publicados en tratamiento cáncer. https://t.co/qVBiF4De4v
Have look at this review (in issues w onc papers) and citations therein; not sure data-free https://t.co/oGe8fIdqhp https://t.co/t0fdIAnAak
#Drug development: Raise standards for #preclinical #cancer research : Nature : Nature Publishing Group https://t.co/McZkik4dy0
Has anyone reproduced the @Amgen "47/53 results not reproducible"? https://t.co/XXtbzBNnvN
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research https://t.co/QtOyqtbiLi
@GRIMACHU neuroscience will still have those problems. https://t.co/9mnO6GxgXs <-- 56 landmark studies, only 6 reproducible.
In #cancer research, early preclinical data is typically useless, unless it's validated. @su2c @americancancer - https://t.co/UQGZMlVSyn
@Titchener medische research vaker in de fout. https://t.co/A6pg5SVzhw
The #reproducibility problem in social science http://t.co/dSwOHZS4wk and medicine http://t.co/vhY2lZD9qx http://t.co/wgwzbtlRqd
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @uranus_2: 経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
経済学で再現性のあるのは50%未満。心理学だけ再現性が低いといって責めるのは止めてほしい。PDF⇒http://t.co/D90zf2jl7l ちなみに癌の臨床前研究も再現性が低かったりする⇒http://t.co/RtFSMw7MHI
RT @smomara1: @WiringTheBrain @BrentWRoberts e.g. http://t.co/WX23UndI6S preclinical pharma research in stroke is in terrible condition too.
@mbeisen @nature 11% of the st, many of wh got published in SCN r not reproducible http://t.co/VYfBuVYil5 dont kw abt evo rpts, however 1/3
We recently heard on the state of psychology research. And how valid are results elsewhere, say in cancer research? http://t.co/tjzDuDlkSL
We recently heard on the state of psychology research. And how valid are results elsewhere, say in cancer research? http://t.co/tjzDuDlkSL
RT @quarridors: And if that looks bad, one analysis found that only 6 of 53 high-profile papers in cancer biology could be reproduced http:…
And if that looks bad, one analysis found that only 6 of 53 high-profile papers in cancer biology could be reproduced http://t.co/UJRFTfJeNf
Irreproducibility of results in preclinical cancer research. Some sensible recommendations. http://t.co/Gpvfe1owtS
@medskep Only 6 of 53 'landmark' cancer research could be reproduced http://t.co/KYU9kog3nc
@medskep Only 6 of 53 'landmark' cancer research could be reproduced back in 2012 http://t.co/KYU9kog3nc
2/@semenko @JimJohnsonSci The "53 papers" Amgen says they can't validate but refuse to identify come to mind. http://t.co/UaJRbJ9tAq
We recently heard on the state of psychology research. And how valid are results elsewhere, say in cancer research? http://t.co/tjzDuDlkSL
@tdverstynen @neurobonkers @edyong209 Initial estimate for cancer biology: 11% http://t.co/HSIDhJyPI0 We will see: https://t.co/Y2yIpTe9XA
@ErnesBustamante @davidzote Por encargo http://t.co/n0BMzilj0h replicabilidad de...
@ManuelSintubin helemaal niet makkelijker: 11 en 25% http://t.co/myPBy1bJDh en http://t.co/bNwBm8xSrq
RT @Gapugent: RT @wduyck: Analoog kankeronderzoek: 53 kernstudies -> 6 replicaties (11%!). http://t.co/OEV7DEJTjk - medicijnen: 25% http://…
@HenkJanOut @mkeulemans @EllendeBruin Onzinnig hoe? Ik refereerde aan dit: http://t.co/ANpB5kaGAq
@tu_quoque_fili Here's one: "team at Bayer reported only 25% of published preclinical studies could be validated…" http://t.co/we0luIscmu
RT @wduyck: Analoog: kankeronderzoek: 53 kernstudies -> 6 replicaties (11%!)). http://t.co/myPBy1bJDh - medicijnen: 25% (!) http://t.co/bNw…
@hans_opdebeeck @ManuelSintubin voor geneeskunde zou men die titel niet durven denk ik http://t.co/myPBy1bJDh
RT @Gapugent: RT @wduyck: Analoog kankeronderzoek: 53 kernstudies -> 6 replicaties (11%!). http://t.co/OEV7DEJTjk - medicijnen: 25% http://…
RT @wduyck: Analoog: kankeronderzoek: 53 kernstudies -> 6 replicaties (11%!)). http://t.co/myPBy1bJDh - medicijnen: 25% (!) http://t.co/bNw…
RT @wduyck: Analoog kankeronderzoek: 53 kernstudies -> 6 replicaties (11%!). http://t.co/OEV7DEJTjk - medicijnen: 25% http://t.co/rBOiGHCmfb
RT @wduyck: Analoog kankeronderzoek: 53 kernstudies -> 6 replicaties (11%!). http://t.co/O5XlktQnIU - medicijnen: 25% http://t.co/LUC8XyNGup
Analoog: kankeronderzoek: 53 kernstudies -> 6 replicaties (11%!)). http://t.co/myPBy1bJDh - medicijnen: 25% (!) http://t.co/bNwBm8xSrq
RT @social_sjs: Heart-warming to see scientists who bother to reproduce experiments http://t.co/9AJlWquvtQ & http://t.co/tOhkWs1dwG @BrianN…
@pegobry By that criterion, most of science isn't science (e.g. http://t.co/3mpwS5tz1Z)
Heart-warming to see scientists who bother to reproduce experiments http://t.co/9AJlWquvtQ & http://t.co/tOhkWs1dwG @BrianNosek [1/2]
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research : Nature : Nature Publishing Group http://t.co/f4ewRSAqrr
αχαχα RT @FScholkmann: Results in 47 of 53 landmark cancer research papers cannot be reproduce -> http://t.co/e1gfXj6wO8
RT @FScholkmann: Results in 47 of 53 landmark cancer research papers cannot be reproduce -> http://t.co/xoXBgHZ9Nb
Results in 47 of 53 landmark cancer research papers cannot be reproduce -> http://t.co/xoXBgHZ9Nb
@michaelhogannui @hardsci And of course oncology has no problem with replication! http://t.co/WX23UnviYq Kettle: meet pot!
@StephenBHeard probs in Psych http://t.co/doOtcnt3w4 & elsewhere e.g., http://t.co/9C9oWchFKl what do you make of > http://t.co/jjpMDdUsvR
Are non-reproduced articles more highly cited than reproduced ones? http://t.co/FMxlDqO8O9 http://t.co/zjYg2tbdNz
Suggestion for: http://t.co/iFRkhr8Gjn To improve use of preclinical results in clinical studies: systematic reviews of preclinical studies.
Do we need stricter preclinical cancer research standards? http://t.co/SpsIFNEfzi
Do we need stricter preclinical cancer research standards? http://t.co/SpsIFNEfzi
Cancer Research - Why we need to raise standards "Methods, must change if patients are to benefit" http://t.co/yDC4LLLJS8
. @KordingLab @nucAmbiguous Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/VPsDbyWEw4
in seguito ad una ricerca della ditta biotecnologica americana AMGEN pubblicata nel 2012 dalla Rivista Nature... http://t.co/FhbZ0bB1Yt
Big problem esp leading edge academic research. Irreproducible biology research costs put at $28 billion per year http://t.co/7meHjoYTI9
@elnocturno @enriquegavilan @Firefly_fan @javierpadillab Hasta en "Nature" se han ocupado de la cuestión http://t.co/qVBiF4De4v
@emiliomonteb @vbaosv Sí, la ausencia de ciencia en oncología es un gravísimo problema http://t.co/qVBiF4De4v http://t.co/nZZHM2CWFB