Logo

Significant, But Not Plausible

Mar 04, 2010

You can't trust medical studies -- or at least the statistics, said a panel at the American Association for the Advancement of Science according to Ars Technica. A major issue is the sheer number of data points and the number of tests that researchers are performing. "Even given a low tolerance for error, the sheer number of tests performed ensures that some of them will produce erroneous results at random," the post says. In addition, models can account for the same factor through different mathematical approaches and then spit out completely different results. Members of the panel said that funding agencies and journal editors should lobby for the use of new statistical methods and hold studies to "minimal standard of biological plausibility."

Breaking News
The Scan

Expanded Genetic Testing Uncovers Hereditary Cancer Risk in Significant Subset of Cancer Patients

In Genome Medicine, researchers found pathogenic or likely pathogenic hereditary cancer risk variants in close to 17 percent of the 17,523 patients profiled with expanded germline genetic testing.

Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy Embryos Appear Largely Normal in Single-Cell 'Omics Analyses

Embryos produced with spindle transfer-based mitochondrial replacement had delayed demethylation, but typical aneuploidy and transcriptome features in a PLOS Biology study.

Cancer Patients Report Quality of Life Benefits for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy was linked in JAMA Network Open to enhanced quality of life compared to other treatment types in cancer patients.

Researchers Compare WGS, Exome Sequencing-Based Mendelian Disease Diagnosis

Investigators find a diagnostic edge for whole-genome sequencing, while highlighting the cost advantages and improving diagnostic rate of exome sequencing in EJHG.