📌La riproducibilità di un risultato scientifico è uno dei fondamenti che legittimano la scienza. Bene, in Oncologia solo 6 studi su 53 lavori scientifici considerati fondamentali sono di fatto riproducibili. Studio pubblicato su Nature https://t.co/tMU9qYf
@QLexPipiens Still on the subject of cancer research: https://t.co/On5TuHCO06 <quote> Fifty-three papers were deemed 'landmark' studies ... scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical researc
@Sidmagos @welt @WHO_Europe @Adnkronos Eine unvorsichtige Formulierung, die eher zur Onkologie passt, wo von den 53 Studien, die als Meilensteine gelten, 47 nicht reproduzierbar sind. Das heißt, nur 11 % der Eckpfeiler der Onkologie sind wissenschaftlich
RT @OMEOPATIASIMOH: In der Onkologie sind von den 53 Studien, die als Meilensteine gelten, 47 nicht reproduzierbar. Mit anderen Worten: Nur…
In der Onkologie sind von den 53 Studien, die als Meilensteine gelten, 47 nicht reproduzierbar. Mit anderen Worten: Nur 11 % der wissenschaftlichen Experimente, die als Meilensteine der onkologischen Forschung gelten, sind reproduzierbar! @derspiegel https
RT @organischchemie: Amgenの記事、これかな https://t.co/Q0y8ItyUYl あと有名なのはこれ? https://t.co/2K6C9IQbLQ まぁどちらにせよ、再現取れんぞ、という内容
Amgenの記事、これかな https://t.co/Q0y8ItyUYl あと有名なのはこれ? https://t.co/2K6C9IQbLQ まぁどちらにせよ、再現取れんぞ、という内容
RT @EthicalConsent: The CDC champions replication in science, but by 2012, Amgen's bombshell revealed 90% of studied papers failed replicat…
RT @EthicalConsent: The CDC champions replication in science, but by 2012, Amgen's bombshell revealed 90% of studied papers failed replicat…
RT @EthicalConsent: The CDC champions replication in science, but by 2012, Amgen's bombshell revealed 90% of studied papers failed replicat…
RT @EthicalConsent: The CDC champions replication in science, but by 2012, Amgen's bombshell revealed 90% of studied papers failed replicat…
The CDC champions replication in science, but by 2012, Amgen's bombshell revealed 90% of studied papers failed replication tests. It raises a stark question: How much of our scientific literature is truly reliable? https://t.co/Yqa87Febe7
@Janosch21565665 @DrLutzBoehm @TspBerlin @N2PhDNet Bayer konnte 25% der Studien reproduzieren. https://t.co/rGLsZFZKkN Amgen konnte 11% der Studien reproduzieren. https://t.co/jbayfzURYl Die Zahlen sprechen für sich, denke ich...
これか、生物学の調査の10%程度しか再現できなかったというやつ。 Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012). https://t.co/KnrI73C1Qh
@slavov_n @ScienceAdvances Counterpoints: 1. What's the impact of a perversely incentivized academia on the development of treatments? Bayer and Amgen were some of the first to sound the replication alarm: https://t.co/jIE6DAonNS https://t.co/Sex3zM4wtk 2
Most people now think the replication crisis started in psychology. But I think it came to the fore in biology and medicine a bit earlier, with Ellis & Begley (2012) https://t.co/xAflu12W7t and Ioannidis (2005). (If you disagree, let me know! my memor
A team at Bayer HealthCare in Germany in 2011 reported that only about 25% of published preclinical studies could be validated to the point at which projects could continue. Notably, published cancer research represented 70% of the studies analysed https:/
RT @fluidloading: 2012, BEGLEY, chercheur pour l'industrie, essaie de reproduire les expériences d'une 50aine de papiers "majeurs" parus da…
RT @jpsuchet: Il y a quelques années, dans une émission, un scientifique y déclarait que, malgré leur reproductibilité théorique, les étude…
RT @fluidloading: 2012, BEGLEY, chercheur pour l'industrie, essaie de reproduire les expériences d'une 50aine de papiers "majeurs" parus da…
RT @jpsuchet: Il y a quelques années, dans une émission, un scientifique y déclarait que, malgré leur reproductibilité théorique, les étude…
RT @jpsuchet: Il y a quelques années, dans une émission, un scientifique y déclarait que, malgré leur reproductibilité théorique, les étude…
Il y a quelques années, dans une émission, un scientifique y déclarait que, malgré leur reproductibilité théorique, les études et expériences étaient rarement refaites. Cela n'a rien de valorisant de refaire l'étude d'un autre. Résultats ⬇️
2012, BEGLEY, chercheur pour l'industrie, essaie de reproduire les expériences d'une 50aine de papiers "majeurs" parus dans Nature, Science etc...Bah oui, l'industrie engage beaucoup d'argent en R&D. On ne https://t.co/sAtR9wGx1D
RT @booksnips: Many landmark findings in preclinical oncology research are not reproducible, in part because of inadequate cell lines and a…
Many landmark findings in preclinical oncology research are not reproducible, in part because of inadequate cell lines and animal models | #CancerResearch https://t.co/zwj11eYnAc
But the problem with translation and reputability of animal studies goes beyond species differences. A 2012 @Nature paper by @cglennbegley at @Amgen revealed that of 53 “landmark” animal studies, only 11% (only 6!) could be replicated and confirmed. 7/ htt
@PosenIzzy @Yakovolf @Tzejokes I don’t remember where this article says that issues in reproducibility only apply to “soft sciences” such as psychology and sociology, rather the opposite is the case. https://t.co/qevkRmjVZK
@MartinBJensen @JackScannell13 @bradloncar @LifeSciVC @JacobPlieth @jaybradner @PeterKolchinsky Another concern is the reproducibility of target validation studies https://t.co/r0AHAAHPE2 Amgen looked at 53 "landmark" studies and were able to reproduce 6.
@OSFramework @Bayer/@Amgen report on replication studies made by the companies during R&D, which shed light on poor #reproducibility in preclinical research. Amgen > https://t.co/xaro7uFcGs Bayer > https://t.co/By5VpWPQAV 🧵3
RT @realsci_DE: Replication crisis https://t.co/vmLGhKrtFk https://t.co/cwDhqZ2wqw https://t.co/6Tfz4BzhEN https://t.co/OXdxt00mJa https://…
RT @realsci_DE: Replication crisis https://t.co/vmLGhKrtFk https://t.co/cwDhqZ2wqw https://t.co/6Tfz4BzhEN https://t.co/OXdxt00mJa https://…
RT @realsci_DE: Replication crisis https://t.co/vmLGhKrtFk https://t.co/cwDhqZ2wqw https://t.co/6Tfz4BzhEN https://t.co/OXdxt00mJa https://…
RT @realsci_DE: Replication crisis https://t.co/vmLGhKrtFk https://t.co/cwDhqZ2wqw https://t.co/6Tfz4BzhEN https://t.co/OXdxt00mJa https://…
多くの分野の研究で再現性に問題が出ているようです。再現性は50%以下という結果も多く報告されています。調べていますが、認知を狂わせることで科学的方法論に基づいた研究成果を変えられそうな気がします。 https://t.co/uosei8mM4x https://t.co/rH3Ba0jXxl https://t.co/4jmWshs8JV
RT @BorgerPieter: Everwehre the samen: 47 van de 53 key papers in cancer research cannot be reproduced... https://t.co/zbKj6QgKJk Science…
RT @BorgerPieter: Everwehre the samen: 47 van de 53 key papers in cancer research cannot be reproduced... https://t.co/zbKj6QgKJk Science…
RT @BorgerPieter: Everwehre the samen: 47 van de 53 key papers in cancer research cannot be reproduced... https://t.co/zbKj6QgKJk Science…
Everwehre the samen: 47 van de 53 key papers in cancer research cannot be reproduced... https://t.co/zbKj6QgKJk Science is as dead as a dodo.
@sevenstaruk @nageco @Hussain73281269 @JamesMelville 47 out of 53 "landmark papers" on cancer were not replicable: https://t.co/BpJsyCALfI
Replication crisis real vs fake data, sharing data, Brain drain, loss of knowledge https://t.co/xZdGFyToJj https://t.co/EsXK1duCI1 https://t.co/1AhbKiYZ3O https://t.co/WUF7qilWy8 7/17
RT @DrLutzBoehm: Replication crisis real vs fake data, https://t.co/xZdGFyToJj https://t.co/EsXK1duCI1 5/12
Replication crisis real vs fake data, https://t.co/xZdGFyToJj https://t.co/EsXK1duCI1 5/12
Clinical trials in #oncology have the highest failure rate compared with other therapeutic areas, which is why reproducible #data in preclinical oncology studies are essential. The standards for preclinical #CancerResearch must be raised. Read more here ht
@lastpositivist Old problem, regularly raised, see here 10 yrs ago https://t.co/Ao29T3MrkW
Amgen’s hematology and oncology department tried to confirm published findings of 53 papers deemed ‘landmark’ studies. Of these, only 6 (11%) were confirmed in validation attempts. https://t.co/Ub8to9wqJn
@Fiona_Bradley of the irreproducible preclinical studies that seemed to provide promising drug targets https://t.co/xAflu12W7t
@BCarneyAlmroth As an industry scientist, I agree there are some issues with industry science. But it isn't the only problem. The irreproducibility of >70% of academic research today is a huge part of the problem. No one knows what science to trust anym
Very glad this was done, but I'd also love to see a retrospective on what's changed since Amgen noted in 2012 that they could not reproduce findings from 47 / 53 landmark cancer papers. https://t.co/zwOF3T0Tcf One advantage now is that the reasons for the
@Ahmad_Alshayea هذي أوراق استشهد بها صاحب المقال: https://t.co/DOov56fBbY https://t.co/pFXuoKPGp7 https://t.co/rn1BS7AjAW
@Renotairo @stdebove Intéressant papier, à lire en détail. Mais pas sûr de pourquoi ça semble être une surprise/nouveauté. Begley et Ellis, chez Amgen, avaient parlé de seulement 13% d'études reproductibles en cancer dans le préclinique, en 2012. (https://
@CT_Bergstrom @eLife This problem has been going on for decades: https://t.co/ZkwfFYDQm7 academia has become such a perverse environment which essentially rewards bad science! Its the public that suffers - billions wasted: https://t.co/QQWAZEkvD6
@robjohnnoble There are other older examples from pharma: https://t.co/ZkwfFYDQm7 That article was from 2012. Its been going on for decades!
RT @Aiims1742: It’s been almost a decade since @cglennbegley & @recnac1 published this landmark commentary. I don’t think we are much farth…
RT @Aiims1742: It’s been almost a decade since @cglennbegley & @recnac1 published this landmark commentary. I don’t think we are much farth…
It’s been almost a decade since @cglennbegley & @recnac1 published this landmark commentary. I don’t think we are much farther along in terms of enhancing reproducibility in preclinical cancer biology research. https://t.co/Jfflja4VPf
@Ulrike_Boehm Hard call. His credibility is so damaged that it undermines his earlier work, but I don’t know of other work from that time that is as well formulated. Maybe include downstream work from other sources? Candidates: https://t.co/dmOoVhXoDH, ht
@elonmusk @MarcusHouse DM me if you want to find out about the most transformative biomedical research in the world. FYI, over 90% of biomedical research published on Pubmed is fake. https://t.co/uwn2z020Lf
@soniazasp @timminglab @clairlemon Yes, check the sources. This is my go-to one (published in Nature) which finds 11% replication rate for top cancer research, based on 53 attempts: https://t.co/MrN60s9qZQ
@ideafaktory @RAVerBruggen <50% in social science is actually way better than some areas of medicine, eg 11% in preclinical cancer research https://t.co/0bOCu0D9H8
@ydeigin To be honest, it's not only IVM, everything from vitamin C to bleach is touted an anti-cancer drug. Might have something to do with the fact that preclin-cancer research is only 11% reproducible: https://t.co/1GrusqWHj8 Those PhDs need there pape
Amgen, for example, could only reproduce data for 11% of the 53 innovative studies they pursued in a 10 year period. https://t.co/u9YttZd1ki
@ReganWichman @stereopsis99 @curryja Industry scientists have played a critical role in establishing the pervasiveness of the replicability crisis in science, particularly in biology, which has been fueled principally by high profile papers coming out of a
@sciandlife @EikoFried @westwoodsam1 It's probably Begley & Ellis (2012): https://t.co/Deld1lajhV Another classic is stroke therapies. 1026 potential treatments over 30+ years - only one worked in the end: https://t.co/IwQe3SEuVO
@JessButler284 @westwoodsam1 Some input from me to follow (cancer research / biomedical science): https://t.co/L3UuU3bbYC
@Oggie65 @mudbutt42 @jonnyenviro @sportsjunkie007 @StickProfessor Maybe it will comfort you to know there are more studies showing exactly the same problem: Out of 53 papers in Cancer Biology, "scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases." h
RT @AlisonBlunt: 6. ..'could not be validated. [https://t.co/7vyVJxj8Z0] In 2012, scientists at the American drug company Amgen published…
6. ..'could not be validated. [https://t.co/7vyVJxj8Z0] In 2012, scientists at the American drug company Amgen published the results of a study [https://t.co/ogMMK8bp2x] in which they selected 53 key papers deemed to be “landmark” studies and tried to rep
RT @uni_study_note: 「がん研究の向上のためには」 がんの臨床試験は、最も失敗率が高い 原因の一つに再現性の低さ(11%~25%?) ↓ Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer res…
「がん研究の向上のためには」 がんの臨床試験は、最も失敗率が高い 原因の一つに再現性の低さ(11%~25%?) ↓ Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research https://t.co/KxwZcPwaWo
Sources of those numbers: https://t.co/aYWdVRY5GH https://t.co/uJ8WzjkUUV
2/2 reproducible results, so that scientists feel less pressure to tell an impossibly perfect story to advance their careers. “ -- Begley & Ellis https://t.co/Z7O0hWGCyL #JIDInnovations #reproducibleresults #dermtwitter #dermscience #dermresearch #repr
RT @JIDJournals: “Fifty-three [cancer] papers were deemed 'landmark' studies... scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases.”…
RT @JIDJournals: “Fifty-three [cancer] papers were deemed 'landmark' studies... scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases.”…
“Fifty-three [cancer] papers were deemed 'landmark' studies... scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases.” -- Begley & Ellis https://t.co/Z7O0hWp1Hd #JIDInnovations #reproducibleresults #dermtwitter #dermscience #dermresearch #reproduc
10/n > This crisis isn't limited to social sciences or just psychology in particular. Depressingly, even in fields like oncology, out of 53 'landmark cancer studies', the findings could be reconfirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. https://t.co/xt1sWdxfTs
RT @ChrisW_PharmaG: Thank you, @annalisafisher, @iainh_z et al at #EMWA50 for adding to my list of articles on the issue of #reproducibilit…
Thank you, @annalisafisher, @iainh_z et al at #EMWA50 for adding to my list of articles on the issue of #reproducibility: Bayer study https://t.co/zJevaf6FoQ Amgen study https://t.co/KMejsnLOkL Venture capital perspective https://t.co/N49lekdA0F Cost https
RT @clairlemon: Cancer research: "scientific findings were confirmed in only 11% of cases" https://t.co/dONBydTp0W
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research https://t.co/YdfNCAOkzK
RT @clairlemon: Cancer research: "scientific findings were confirmed in only 11% of cases" https://t.co/dONBydTp0W
RT @clairlemon: Cancer research: "scientific findings were confirmed in only 11% of cases" https://t.co/dONBydTp0W
RT @clairlemon: Cancer research: "scientific findings were confirmed in only 11% of cases" https://t.co/dONBydTp0W
RT @clairlemon: Cancer research: "scientific findings were confirmed in only 11% of cases" https://t.co/dONBydTp0W
RT @clairlemon: Cancer research: "scientific findings were confirmed in only 11% of cases" https://t.co/dONBydTp0W
RT @clairlemon: Cancer research: "scientific findings were confirmed in only 11% of cases" https://t.co/dONBydTp0W
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research, 8 years old https://t.co/lqgAvtMLoH
Cancer research: "scientific findings were confirmed in only 11% of cases" https://t.co/dONBydTp0W
@scholarlykitchn @adametkin @EMBOPress This could distinguish not only preprint vs peer-reviewed (with details) journal article but also, for example, a research article in that journal vs a letter/opinion/comment/editorial that might not have been in the
@CreeganPhilip @nathansldennis @realAAAbbott @ClarkeMicah Scientists at biotech firm Amgen, double-checked the results of 53 peer-reviewed landmark published studies in their fields of cancer research/blood biology. 6 of the 53 studies could be proven vali
@sesiegler @N8mello @drdavidsamadi Scientists at the biotech firm Amgen, set out to double-check the results of 53 peer reviewed landmark published studies in their fields of cancer research/blood biology. Findings were shocking; only 6 of the 53 studies c
@Enby896 @vas_normandy_ Her are articles criticizing how replicable the findings of peer-reviewed articles actually are: https://t.co/Aw0p3rftXw https://t.co/ozrjjAmKZB https://t.co/nQView3Kzo https://t.co/JSBy495WMy https://t.co/xd0TdBcIik That's no
47 out of 53 medical research papers focused on cancer research were irreproducible https://t.co/WAXzO7Lqwj