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 president of France's National Research Agency has resigned, according to Nature News.

A senator wants a "right-to-try" provision in the US Food and Drug Administration funding bill, but an ethicist says at Stat News that it would undermine the role of clinical trials.

In PNAS this week: red algae Porphyra umbicalis genome, deep neural network model for sequencing peptides, and more.

The Guardian's Barbara Ellen has tried out some DNA testing services to see whether they provide valuable information.