Highly-cited biomarker studies tend to report larger effect estimates for associations than subsequent meta-analyses do, says a literature review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. John Ioannidis and Orestis Panagiotou combed through the ISI Web of Science to find studies that had been cited more than 400 times and had been published in a highly cited journal, and they searched for meta-analyses of those studies. From this, they evaluated 35 highly cited associations.

Get the full story

This story is free
for registered users

Registering provides access to this and other free content.

Register now.

Already have an account?
Login Now.

The US Food and Drug Administration has new guidelines that enable some gene and cell therapies to undergo expedited review, according to the New York Times.

Using gene drives to control invasive species might be too risky, an initial advocate of the approach says.

Researchers have grown tumors in 3D cell cultures to better understand cancer, the Economist reports.

In Science this week: intellectual property experts argue patent battles such as the one over CRISPR are wasteful, and more.