Loading
Clinical trials get expert statistical review; the laboratory studies that justify them usually do not. Paying statisticians to review these papers before they influence a trial would catch errors early.
Statistical errors in preclinical papers (pseudo-replication, inappropriate tests, no correction for multiple comparisons) are common and are rarely caught by biologist reviewers. Journals could not afford it; a funder-supported service that provides paid statistical review for preclinical papers cited in trial protocols or investigational new drug packages, with a published statistical report, would target the small fraction of papers that matter most for translation.
Shares Independent replication of the key experiment before first-in-human academic trials, Preclinical results do not reproduce.
Shares Preclinical results do not reproduce, The valley of death between lab and product.
Shares Run automated statistics and image checks on every cancer manuscript before review, Preclinical results do not reproduce.
Shares Independent replication of the key experiment before first-in-human academic trials, Preclinical results do not reproduce.
Shares Independent replication of the key experiment before first-in-human academic trials, Preclinical results do not reproduce.
Shares Preclinical results do not reproduce, The valley of death between lab and product.
Shares Preclinical results do not reproduce, The valley of death between lab and product.
Shares Preclinical results do not reproduce, The valley of death between lab and product.