@emiliomonteb @vbaosv Sí, la ausencia de ciencia en oncología es un gravísimo problema http://t.co/qVBiF4De4v http://t.co/nZZHM2CWFB
That's wrong, too. It was 89% of *53* papers deemed to be "landmark studies." http://t.co/FX7d26BaiY cc: @juliaoftoronto @bradplumer
MS: Mentions #reproducibility challenge in the lit #academiapharma http://t.co/UVtCom10uI - a problem for pharma if investment based on it
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/9EmX0E0CUb
@JimJohnsonSci @BioMickWatson @robin_andersson I feel this paper is indicative of problem http://t.co/sjKFgBWEIg
@JimJohnsonSci @BioMickWatson @robin_andersson I feel this paper is indicative of problem http://t.co/sjKFgBWEIg
@kaythaney @BWJones @lteytelman @adametkin @elizabethiorns I believe this is it: http://t.co/xMxe1qv981
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research : Nature : Nature Publishing Group #aacr15 #aacramc http://t.co/IQgkWuvR4S
@lteytelman @TheWackademic @GBSIorg 6 of 53 worked http://t.co/tPDHxxmcjC; Bayer=78%, Hartshorne-54% of 238 in does data support conclusions
@lteytelman @TheWackademic @GBSIorg 6 of 53 worked http://t.co/tPDHxxmcjC; Bayer=78%, Hartshorne-54% of 238 in does data support conclusions
Boulton cites Reproducibility of research findings Nature v 483 20 March 2012 http://t.co/abPzVJUkZx Shocked at results. #uksg15
Boulton cites Reproducibility of research findings Nature v 483 20 March 2012 http://t.co/abPzVJUkZx Shocked at results. #uksg15
Boulton cites Reproducibility of research findings Nature v 483 20 March 2012 http://t.co/abPzVJUkZx Shocked at results. #uksg15
Great pleasure to have Glenn Begley #ResSymp15. Glenn put a bomb under cancer research a few yrs ago with this paper. http://t.co/yuJmLtGOEE
Great pleasure to have Glenn Begley #ResSymp15. Glenn put a bomb under cancer research a few yrs ago with this paper. http://t.co/yuJmLtGOEE
Great pleasure to have Glenn Begley #ResSymp15. Glenn put a bomb under cancer research a few yrs ago with this paper. http://t.co/yuJmLtGOEE
Great pleasure to have Glenn Begley #ResSymp15. Glenn put a bomb under cancer research a few yrs ago with this paper. http://t.co/yuJmLtGOEE
@JimJohnsonSci @TylMarek @Novartis @Innovation_F @OneNucleus 47/53 landmark oncology papers not reproducible http://t.co/1ukvtdd30L #ifl15
at #btw2015 @dagmarwaltemath showed that the number of citations does mean nothing to the reproducibility of the work http://t.co/JZw4bbOOL3
at #btw2015 @dagmarwaltemath showed that the number of citations does mean nothing to the reproducibility of the work http://t.co/JZw4bbOOL3
at #btw2015 @dagmarwaltemath showed that the number of citations does mean nothing to the reproducibility of the work http://t.co/JZw4bbOOL3
@JimJohnsonSci @DrStelling @lteytelman @arjunrajlab @slavov_mit Here is ref to "landmark" cancer preclinical studies http://t.co/0KtZp4nlxV
@JimJohnsonSci @DrStelling @lteytelman @arjunrajlab @slavov_mit Here is ref to "landmark" cancer preclinical studies http://t.co/0KtZp4nlxV
Scientists: Get your 💩 together. http://t.co/sPotowjz5u http://t.co/C2JLS4XlQW http://t.co/CErJMpmDv4
Even among studies that aren't deliberate lies, most are simply false http://t.co/2rKAdDrwHQ and fail to replicate http://t.co/sJytQyEJAO
Even among studies that aren't deliberate lies, most are simply false http://t.co/2rKAdDrwHQ and fail to replicate http://t.co/sJytQyEJAO
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research - inadequate cell lines and animal models http://t.co/krJukTijsl
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/0umve2wZqz
PB: References 2012 Begley Nature on reproducing studies http://t.co/x0d6v29My6 and how it can affect funding #PAGXXIII
PB: Another perturbing aspect going on: 47/53 landmark cancer publications could not be replicated http://t.co/h71AcI8J8e #PAGXXIII
PB: References 2012 Begley Nature on reproducing studies http://t.co/x0d6v29My6 and how it can affect funding #PAGXXIII
#Drug development: Raise standards for #preclinical #cancer research http://t.co/d4POkOmRbq Very true! #pharma #nonclinical...
#Drug development: Raise standards for #preclinical #cancer research http://t.co/d4POkOmRbq Very true! #pharma #nonclinical...
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical #cancerresearch, Via @nature http://t.co/lJGE9JXWAL
@HGLeitch @ewanbirney @ilovechocagar There is little evidence for it. In fact, there is evidence against it. http://t.co/ZGhnDdtM6l
Top story: Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research : … http://t.co/pxzixswISg, see more http://t.co/JZAulm7B8D
Pharma's important helpful work on replication: Ioannidis points to http://t.co/JWWIEC1tBg #PLOSMed10th
Pharma's important helpful work on replication: Ioannidis points to http://t.co/JWWIEC1tBg #PLOSMed10th
Pharma's important helpful work on replication: Ioannidis points to http://t.co/JWWIEC1tBg #PLOSMed10th
Top story: Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research : … http://t.co/pxzixswISg, see more http://t.co/JZAulm7B8D
Pharma's important helpful work on replication: Ioannidis points to http://t.co/JWWIEC1tBg #PLOSMed10th
Pharma's important helpful work on replication: Ioannidis points to http://t.co/JWWIEC1tBg #PLOSMed10th
David Lipman discussing reproducibility: "Begley & Ellis http://t.co/w6f9p8jK1A say its low, companies say it's even lower" #IDIES
only ~10% hi impact studies were reproducible! MT @hildabast: Pharma's imp work on replication: Ioannidis points to http://t.co/WJgQwfywO4
Pharma's important helpful work on replication: Ioannidis points to http://t.co/JWWIEC1tBg #PLOSMed10th
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/nzG44grIsC @MccabeCJM @jpraft
am i missing something, or is the list of articles that amgen tried (and failed) to replicate not available? #irony http://t.co/OR1NY7XlM4
I can understand the logic itself, but can't find the data supporting it. I missed something? http://t.co/b9Hts4EGNu http://t.co/md6TdUSyJl
例の調査、はコレのことですね。 論旨は理解できるとして、この調査結果のデータはどこにあるんだろう。supplemental methodも見当たらないのだけれど。 http://t.co/b9Hts4EGNu http://t.co/md6TdUSyJl
Many landmark findings in preclinical #cancer #research are not reproducible http://t.co/EoQEV4JgyN http://t.co/4An8nafFdH
@ClaireBerlinski better link about that one here: http://t.co/miF7iRqXnA
43 failed attempts to replicate results of 53 "landmark" cancer biology publications http://t.co/yK9RmNVCdM
.@pebourne: not good for funding when Congress hears cancer research is irreproducible; refs @nature http://t.co/hLEvUjFs3P #bigdatamed
90% of preclinical studies not reproducible! #shocked http://t.co/ADX3hbb2uz http://t.co/cQyzrv4TrU
@trished @ScholarlyChickn @CAMARADES_ But was the key feature that they were mouse studies or academic studies? http://t.co/86p8qI57br
Still a problem: @amgen scientists found only ~10% of "landmark" #cancer #precilinical pubs are reproducible. http://t.co/ETMb4xhhrh
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/lZ7C78Xa18 "Fail early, fail smart"
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/DBAUIMzu2i
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/DBAUIMzu2i
@riocampos このイタリア語の記事で言及されている2つの記事がこれです。僕は全部は読んでいませんが。 http://t.co/8curk2tXmF http://t.co/NjtmpKCAFs
(last years news -- non-reproducibility in major cancer studies) "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research" http://t.co/g9eKhDv0Rf
(last years news -- non-reproducibility in major cancer studies) "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research" http://t.co/g9eKhDv0Rf
@drugmonkeyblog This is what I'm going off of: http://t.co/5m7BEWpO3h
Only 6/ 54 cancer drug trials could b replicated! 90% couldn't be. Big data, big bias http://t.co/qgNNEq6ofS
#Academia is next in line for a good Schumpetering. Only 6 of 53 publications could be reproduced. Not good for EBM. http://t.co/RmAqGSs7Bf
Need to raise standards in pre-clinical research http://t.co/GqA8JSm57w
A corner stone for Science in Transition, Begley and Ellis paper on pre-clinical research @SciTransit http://t.co/hF94JexJie
A corner stone for Science in Transition, Begley and Ellis paper on pre-clinical research @SciTransit http://t.co/hF94JexJie
A corner stone for Science in Transition, Begley and Ellis paper on pre-clinical research @SciTransit http://t.co/hF94JexJie
#Drug development: Raise #standards for #preclinical #cancer #research http://t.co/yEdE3tqshB
"Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases." | http://t.co/mtm5R5SvqK Change the culture
[Mar 2012] Estudos mostram que apenas 10-25% dos resuktados preclínicos publicados sobre cancer são reprodutíveis http://t.co/B1BVdmriq3
@simplystats @StatFact here's an example of empirical support http://t.co/DSNvWrvmbW
#WCLC2013 Yu Shyr: how reproduce able are cancer trials? Only 6/53 (11%) http://t.co/w3Msdra5M6
David Lipman from NIH cited additional examples re: reproducibility in biology http://t.co/2mOhH1p0ub
@Ng_Dave thanks for link, David Lipman from NIH cited additional examples re: reproducibility in biology http://t.co/2mOhH1p0ub
Cuando los incentivos son inadecuados, hasta los científicos pierden la brújula http://t.co/f2bH3JlgsA
Cuando los incentivos son inadecuados, hasta los científicos pierden la brújula http://t.co/f2bH3JlgsA
Why biotech-education programs are so important - Amgen finds only 6 out of 53 academic studies could be reproduced. http://t.co/UdmlshlYdz
@EconSciTech @jcolbertMD AMGEN citation http://t.co/qWusjzKMwl Unfortunately we do not know which studies reproduced. http://t.co/1FYhT1wrOO
Fast frågan är hur väl man kan lita på prekliniska cancerstudier, även om de är ofejkade. http://t.co/Pa8LvCUqxo
Fast frågan är hur väl man kan lita på prekliniska cancerstudier, även om de är ofejkade. http://t.co/Pa8LvCUqxo
Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research http://t.co/qE4MW4ojwq
@giorgiogilestro @alisson_gontijo @emorenolampaya one possible reason:http://t.co/aKkNaPBp6Z
Only 1 in 10 "landmark" #cancer studies can be replicated, a "shocking" result that bodes ill for '#drug development http://t.co/zzEOWGEbTj
89% of "landmark" cancer studies can't be reproduced. AUTHORS :"..publications and incentives must change..." http://t.co/Hc6oCa3MYq