The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 42 of the 62 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies
Open accessAbstract
Over the last decade, oxytocin (OT) has received focus in numerous studies associating intranasal administration of this peptide with various aspects of human social behavior. These studies in humans are inspired by animal research, especially in rodents, showing that central manipulations of the OT system affect behavioral phenotypes related to social cognition, including parental behavior, social bonding, and individual recognition. Taken together, these studies in humans appear to provide compelling, but sometimes bewildering, evidence for the role of OT in influencing a vast array of complex social cognitive processes in humans. In this article, we investigate to what extent the human intranasal OT literature lends support to the hypothesis that intranasal OT consistently influences a wide spectrum of social behavior in humans. We do this by considering statistical features of studies within this field, including factors like statistical power, prestudy odds, and bias. Our conclusion is that intranasal OT studies are generally underpowered and that there is a high probability that most of the published intranasal OT findings do not represent true effects. Thus, the remarkable reports that intranasal OT influences a large number of human social behaviors should be viewed with healthy skepticism, and we make recommendations to improve the reliability of human OT studies in the future.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper argues that human intranasal oxytocin (IN-OT) studies are generally underpowered and that many published positive findings likely do not represent true effects. The authors use meta-analytic effect sizes, power calculations, positive predictive value estimates, and a survey of 2014 IN-OT papers to recommend larger, more transparent, and better-replicated studies.
Key findings
- Across three published meta-analyses, the weighted mean effect size for healthy subjects was d=0.28 with median N=49, yielding average statistical power of 16%; clinical trials had median N=26, d=0.32, and power of 12%. To achieve 80% power, 352 healthy subjects or 310 clinical-trial participants would be needed.
- Even with the largest observed effect size (d=0.48) and largest sample size in the meta-analyses (N=112), power was no higher than 70%; sample sizes of 49 and 26 could reliably detect only large effects (d=0.81 to d=1.14) at 80% power.
- If pre-study odds R=0.10 and power is 16%, the positive predictive value (PPV) was no higher than 24%; with 10 independent tests and only one reported, PPV dropped to 17%.
- In 33 IN-OT papers from 2014, 29 (88%) reported at least one positive finding, but only 62 of 357 tested effects (17%) were significant; only 3 papers mentioned multiple-comparison correction, and the average number of tests was 11. Vole studies using central OT/vasopressin manipulation had a summarized effect size of d=0.76 (30 experiments, 668 individuals), though median n=22 and power=0.43.
Methods
- Reanalyzed data from three published meta-analyses of IN-OT effects, calculating sample-size-weighted average effect sizes for healthy subjects and clinical trials, then estimating power with G*Power and R simulations.
- Examined 33 behavioral IN-OT papers published in 2014, recording positive findings, total tested effects, multiple-comparison correction, and number of tests, as described in supplemental information.
- Estimated effect sizes from 30 independent vole partner-preference experiments (668 individuals total) to compare central OT/vasopressin manipulation with intranasal administration.
Limitations
- The authors state that the true pre-study odds (R) for IN-OT studies cannot be determined with much certainty, and their PPV estimates assume no influence of bias, so actual PPV could be considerably lower.
- They note that publication-bias tests in the IN-OT meta-analyses gave mixed results and may be unreliable because small sample sizes provide insufficient power and sample-size variability; they also state they cannot assess the independence of tests in the 2014 survey.
- The vole effect-size analysis was underpowered (median n=22, 1−β=0.43), and the larger autism effect size (d=0.57) came from only four studies and should be interpreted cautiously. Evident from the text: the 2014 paper survey is treated as representative only conditionally, and the field-wide conclusions depend on that assumption.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
25 Own interpretation · 21 Own result · 12 Partly supported · 12 No full text of the sources · 10 Supported · 7 No basis given · 4 Supported so far · 1 Mixed support · 1 Sources not found · accuracy not yet measured
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These studies yielded summarized effect sizes ranging from d=0.21 to d=0.48.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] Van IJzendoorn, 2012, A sniff of trust: Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin administration on face recognition, trust to in-group, and trust to out-group, Psychoneuroendocrinology source
The Results report combined effect sizes of d = 0.21 for face recognition and out-group trust, and d = 0.48 for in-group trust. Table 1 lists the same values for the three total sets, confirming the stated range. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Partly supportedcites [10] Shahrestani, 2013, The impact of a single administration of intranasal oxytocin on the recognition of basic emotions in humans: A meta-analysis, Neuropsychopharmacology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Moderation by Emotion Type section reports an effect size of Hedges’ g=0.210 for angry faces, close to the stated lower bound. It does not establish 0.48 as the upper bound: the same section reports g=0.591 for fearful faces, and the paper reports Hedges’ g rather than Cohen’s d (Statistical Analyses). No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Disputedcites [11] Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2013, Sniffing around oxytocin: Review and meta-analyses of trials in healthy and clinical groups with implications for pharmacotherapy, Transl Psychiatry sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Meta-analysis section reports a combined effect size of d=0.32 for 19 clinical experiments and d=0.57 for the autism-spectrum subset. The latter exceeds the claimed upper bound of d=0.48; the reported range is therefore not supported by this paper. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“To date three meta-analyses of the effects of IN-OT on human behavior have been published.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [9] Van IJzendoorn, 2012, A sniff of trust: Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin administration on face recognition, trust to in-group, and trust to out-group, Psychoneuroendocrinology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Method section (page unavailable) says this paper reports three meta-analyses of intranasal oxytocin’s effects on face recognition, in-group trust, and out-group trust. It does not establish that these were the only three meta-analyses published to date; the three analyses are reported in this one paper. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Partly supportedcites [10] Shahrestani, 2013, The impact of a single administration of intranasal oxytocin on the recognition of basic emotions in humans: A meta-analysis, Neuropsychopharmacology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The title and Criteria for Considering Studies for this Review identify this paper as a meta-analysis of intranasal oxytocin’s effects on human emotion recognition. The Introduction also discusses another oxytocin meta-analysis. Our copy does not establish that exactly three meta-analyses of intranasal oxytocin’s effects on human behavior had been published to date. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites [11] Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2013, Sniffing around oxytocin: Review and meta-analyses of trials in healthy and clinical groups with implications for pharmacotherapy, Transl Psychiatry source
The ‘Meta-analytic evidence’ section (page unavailable) identifies three meta-analyses of intranasal oxytocin’s effects in healthy participants: face recognition, in-group trust, and out-group distrust. It refers readers to the published work for details, supporting the claim that three such analyses had been published. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although the idea that manipulating OT in humans could influence social behavior is supported by rigorous animal research, we argue that the pre-study odds of studies investigating the effect of IN-OT still would be low, primarily due to limitations in deep brain penetration of OT when administered intranasally (2, 19).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [2] Churchland, 2012, Modulating social behavior with oxytocin: How does it work? What does it mean?, Horm Behav sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2B questions whether intranasal oxytocin reaches brain receptor sites in sufficient amounts and notes its poor penetration across the blood–brain barrier. It does not establish that intranasal delivery has limited deep-brain penetration or assess the pre-study odds of such studies; those are stronger claims than the paper makes. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites [19] Leng, 2016, Intranasal oxytocin: Myths and delusions, Biol Psychiatry source
The section ‘Oxytocin penetration of the brain after intranasal administration’ reports that at most 0.005% of an intranasal dose reached the CSF within an hour. ‘Peripheral targets for oxytocin’ cautions that the CSF measurements show minimal penetration at best, while allowing that oxytocin might reach some brain regions without entering the CSF. The claim about low pre-study odds is the citing authors’ own inference; the source supports the penetration limitation they give as its basis. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“As Ioannidis (16) showed by statistical modeling this is not the case.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [16] Ioannidis, 2005, Why most published research findings are false, PLoS Med source
In “Modeling the Framework for False Positive Findings,” Ioannidis shows that at α = 0.05, whether a significant finding is more likely true than false also depends on statistical power and pre-study odds. The same section cautions against treating a single result below p = 0.05 as conclusive, supporting the claim that the threshold alone does not reliably avoid false positives. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“However, publication bias tests might be problematic for IN-OT studies due to small sample sizes resulting in insufficient statistical power and sample size variability for the tests to yield reliable and significant results (26).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [26] Ioannidis, 2007, The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: A large survey, CMAJ sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract says asymmetry tests have low power when a meta-analysis includes few studies and are not meaningful when studies have similar precision. The Interpretation likewise identifies too few studies and too little difference between study sizes as problems. The paper does not examine intranasal oxytocin studies or establish that their sample sizes have these characteristics; it also distinguishes few studies from small samples within studies. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“facilitate OT-dependent partner preferences in prairie voles (35, 37, 39, 40)”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [35] Modi, 2012, The oxytocin system in drug discovery for autism: Animal models and novel therapeutic strategies, Horm Behav sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Enhancing endogenous OT release” (page unavailable), the paper says preliminary, unpublished studies suggest a melanocortin receptor agonist promotes partner preference in prairie voles. It proposes that MC4R agonists increase central OT release, drawing on evidence from rats, but does not establish that the vole partner-preference effect is OT-dependent. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [37] Modi, 2015, Melanocortin receptor agonists facilitate oxytocin-dependent partner preference formation in the Prairie Vole, Neuropsychopharmacology source
The Abstract reports that two melanocortin receptor agonists enhanced partner preference formation in prairie voles and that an oxytocin receptor antagonist prevented MTII-induced preferences. The Discussion likewise reports that blocking oxytocin receptors inhibited MTII’s effect, supporting the OT-dependent characterization. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [39] Barrett, 2015, The oxytocin system promotes resilience to the effects of neonatal isolation on adult social attachment in female prairie voles, Transl Psychiatry source
The Introduction reports that the melanocortin receptor agonist MTII facilitates adult partner-preference formation in prairie voles through an oxytocin-receptor-dependent mechanism. The paper cites earlier work for that mechanism; its Discussion cautions that its own neonatal-treatment experiment does not prove oxytocin dependence. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [40] Barrett, 2014, Neonatal melanocortin receptor agonist treatment reduces play fighting and promotes adult attachment in prairie voles in a sex-dependent manner, Neuropharmacology source
The Abstract explicitly states that acute melanotan-II, a melanocortin receptor agonist, facilitates oxytocin-dependent partner preference formation in prairie voles. The Introduction also reports that melanocortin agonists promote partner preference formation, while attributing the acute finding to Modi et al. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“If the value of R for IN-OT studies is approximately 0.10, comparable to what has suggested for experimental psychology (21) and exploratory epidemiology (16), the PPV is no higher than 24%, given a statistical power of 16%.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] Pashler, 2012, Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined, Perspect Psychol Sci source
- Supportedcites [16] Ioannidis, 2005, Why most published research findings are false, PLoS Med source
In “Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields,” the paper uses R = 1:10 for exploratory epidemiology. In “Modeling the Framework for False Positive Findings,” its PPV formula yields approximately 24% when R = 0.10, power = 0.16, and α = 0.05. The paper does not estimate R or power for intranasal oxytocin studies; the citing sentence uses those as conditional inputs. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“and there are also reasons to believe that publication bias is more likely to affect low powered studies (25).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] Dwan, 2008, Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias, PloS One sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Publication and trial findings; page unavailable) report that studies with statistically significant results were more likely to be published, which provides a reason for the citing sentence's concern. But the review does not compare publication bias by statistical power or state that low-powered studies are more affected; its mentions of power concern discrepancies in reported power calculations. (LLM, conf=0.78)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In addition, it has been shown that the more popular or “trendy” a scientific field is the less likely it is to generate true findings (16) and the extent to which a study overestimates true effects is positively correlated with the impact factor of a journal (30).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [16] Ioannidis, 2005, Why most published research findings are false, PLoS Med source
Corollary 6 states that the hotter a scientific field, with more teams involved, the less likely its research findings are to be true. This directly supports the cited part of the sentence; the separate journal-impact-factor claim is attributed to another source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“we believe the behavioral effects of OT are indeed evolutionary conserved (6, 32)”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] Young, 2015, Oxytocin, social cognition and psychiatry, Neuropsychopharmacology source
The opening passage (p. 243) says OT has an ancient role in modulating sensing and responding to social stimuli “from nematodes to man.” The discussion (pp. 243–244) also describes analogous roles in rodent and human social information processing, supporting the claim of evolutionary conservation in social behavior. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] Insel, 2000, Neuropeptides and the evolution of social behavior, Curr Opin Neurobiol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
- It may state two separate claims as one. 16
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Van IJzendoorn and Bakersmans-Kranenburg investigated the effect of IN-OT on facial emotion recognition (13 effect sizes, total N = 408), trust to in-group (8 effect sizes, total N = 317) and trust to out-group (10 effect sizes, total N = 505) (9).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] Van IJzendoorn, 2012, A sniff of trust: Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin administration on face recognition, trust to in-group, and trust to out-group, Psychoneuroendocrinology source
The Method section states that the authors conducted three meta-analyses of intranasal oxytocin’s effects on face recognition (13 effect sizes, N = 408), in-group trust (8, N = 317), and out-group trust (10, N = 505). These match the topics and figures in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“More recently, attention has turned to its role in regulating complex social behavior, including parental care, social bonding and social cognition in general (1–6).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] Bartz, 2011, Social effects of oxytocin in humans: Context and person matter, Trends Cogn Sci source
- Supportedcites [2] Churchland, 2012, Modulating social behavior with oxytocin: How does it work? What does it mean?, Horm Behav source
The Introduction describes growing research attention to oxytocin’s role in social behavior, citing maternal behavior, mate attachment, and social recognition. The Abstract discusses research on oxytocin’s effects on human social cognition, while cautioning that the precise mechanism remains unsettled. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites [3] Evans, 2014, Intranasal oxytocin effects on social cognition: A critique, Brain Res source
The section “Intranasal oxytocin: effects on social cognition” describes oxytocin’s effects on maternal behavior and pair bonding, then reports findings that it can affect social-stimulus processing and regulate social behaviors. These correspond to parental care, social bonding, and social cognition in the claim; the supplied passage has no page number. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Guastella, 2013, Recommendations for the standardisation of oxytocin nasal administration and guidelines for its reporting in human research, Psychoneuroendocrinology source
- Supportedcites [5] Ross, 2009, Oxytocin and the neural mechanisms regulating social cognition and affiliative behavior, Front Neuroendocrin source
The Introduction (section 1.1) states that oxytocin modulates social cognition and affiliative behavior and describes its role in maternal nurturing and social bond formation. The Abstract also identifies maternal care, mother-infant bonding, pair bonding, and aspects of human social cognition as roles of oxytocin. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [6] Young, 2015, Oxytocin, social cognition and psychiatry, Neuropsychopharmacology source
The opening passage (pp. 243–244) says oxytocin regulates maternal behavior and contributes to social bonding. Later passages discuss its role in social information processing and cognition, supporting the cited sentence’s broader description. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Data suggest that the R for phase III clinical trials is approximately 1, meaning that in about 50% of the time the drugs that make it to these trials are more effective than the current “gold standard” treatment (18).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] Djulbegovic, 2013, Medical research: Trial unpredictability yields predictable therapy gains, Nature source
In “Genuine Uncertainty” (page unavailable), the paper reports an analysis of 860 phase III randomized trials in which new treatments were better than standard treatments about 50–60% of the time; it also says the rate has converged around 50%. That supports the citing sentence’s approximate one-in-two odds, although the paper describes treatments broadly rather than drugs alone. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn studied the effect of IN-OT in clinical trials (19 effect sizes, total N=304)(11).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [11] Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2013, Sniffing around oxytocin: Review and meta-analyses of trials in healthy and clinical groups with implications for pharmacotherapy, Transl Psychiatry source
The Meta-analysis section says the authors analyzed 19 randomized experiments of oxytocin administration in clinical samples, with a combined sample of N=304. The source studied those trials through a meta-analysis; the claim does not say the authors conducted the trials themselves. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainn = 304- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Much of the excitement regarding OT over the past decade has been driven by a remarkable proliferation of research suggesting that intranasal OT (IN-OT) administration influences various aspects of human social behavior (7).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] Young, 2012, Editorial comment: Oxytocin, vasopressin and social behavior, Horm Behav source
The editorial comment says that dozens of intranasal oxytocin papers suggest the peptide modulates many aspects of human social cognition, including eye gaze and in-group behavior. This directly supports the citing sentence’s hedged claim. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Shahrestani et al. conducted a meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of OT on recognition of basic emotions (7 effect sizes, total N = 381)(10).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [10] Shahrestani, 2013, The impact of a single administration of intranasal oxytocin on the recognition of basic emotions in humans: A meta-analysis, Neuropsychopharmacology sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says the meta-analysis examined oxytocin’s effect on recognition of basic facial emotions, and Study Characteristics reports seven independent studies comprising 381 participants. The citing sentence calls these “7 effect sizes,” but the source says seven studies; its Results report a heterogeneity statistic with 13 degrees of freedom, so the effect-size count is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plainn = 381- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“but not very different from studies in neuroscience in general (average power = 21%) (14).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [14] Button, 2013, Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience, Nat Rev Neurosci sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports 21% as the median statistical power across the studies analyzed, not the arithmetic average. The paper discusses this estimate in relation to neuroscience generally, but the cited figure is mislabeled as an average. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“which is in line with a study by Fanelli showing that more than 80% of scientific publications in various sciences report positive results (22).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [22] Fanelli, 2010, “Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences, PloS One sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that 2045 of 2434 papers (84%) across 20 disciplines gave positive or partial support for a tested hypothesis. But the study included only papers that explicitly tested a hypothesis, and the Discussion notes its focus on English-language scientific journals; it does not establish that more than 80% of scientific publications generally report positive results. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“mimic the prosocial effects of OT in a mouse model of autism (41)”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [41] Penagarikano, 2015, Exogenous and evoked oxytocin restores social behavior in the Cntnap2 mouse model of autism, Sci Transl Med source
The Results section reports that the selective melanocortin-4 receptor agonist Ro27-3225 improved social behavior in Cntnap2 mice, and that blocking the oxytocin receptor eliminated this effect. The Discussion likewise states that MC4R stimulation improved social behavior in this autism model. This supports the claim that the agonist mimicked oxytocin’s prosocial effect. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The meta-analyses mentioned in this paper all tested for evidence of publication bias in the IN-OT literature, with mixed results (9–11).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] Van IJzendoorn, 2012, A sniff of trust: Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin administration on face recognition, trust to in-group, and trust to out-group, Psychoneuroendocrinology source
The Method section says the authors used trim-and-fill to assess potential publication bias in their intranasal oxytocin meta-analyses. The Results section reports mixed findings: no indication of bias for face recognition, but indications of bias for in-group and out-group trust. This verifies the cited paper’s contribution to the collective claim, not the findings of the other cited papers. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [10] Shahrestani, 2013, The impact of a single administration of intranasal oxytocin on the recognition of basic emotions in humans: A meta-analysis, Neuropsychopharmacology source
The Statistical Analyses section says the authors inspected a funnel plot to test for publication bias. The Results section reports no evidence of significant publication bias. The cited paper therefore supports its part of the collective statement; the 'mixed results' characterize the meta-analyses together, not this paper alone. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites [11] Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2013, Sniffing around oxytocin: Review and meta-analyses of trials in healthy and clinical groups with implications for pharmacotherapy, Transl Psychiatry sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Meta-analysis section reports using trim-and-fill to assess potential publication bias in the clinical-trial meta-analysis and finding no bias against small studies with small effects. The Meta-analytic evidence section also describes analyses of healthy participants, but does not report publication-bias tests for them. This source therefore supports that a bias test was conducted, not that all the meta-analyses mentioned were tested or that their bias results were mixed. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Only four studies of autism were included in the analysis and should therefore be interpreted cautiously.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [11] Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2013, Sniffing around oxytocin: Review and meta-analyses of trials in healthy and clinical groups with implications for pharmacotherapy, Transl Psychiatry source
The Meta-analysis section identifies a set of four studies on individuals with autism spectrum disorder, including one Prader–Willi syndrome study. It cautions that the number of studies per syndrome is small, and the Conclusions likewise describe the meta-analytic database as modest. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These alternate means of manipulating the OT system, if used in humans, could potentially increase the effect size to levels similar to central injections of OT (36).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [36] Young, 2015, Can oxytocin treat autism?, Science sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Can oxytocin treat autism?” (page unavailable), Young suggests that alternative approaches to the oxytocin system may overcome limitations of current therapies and improve social cognition; a DREADD approach might one day be feasible in humans. The paper does not discuss effect sizes or predict effects comparable to central oxytocin injections. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Understanding the precise neural and cognitive effects of OT manipulation on the processing of social information can be used to increase the efficacy of OT-based therapies to improve social function in psychiatric disorders (36).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [36] Young, 2015, Can oxytocin treat autism?, Science source
In “Can oxytocin treat autism?” (page not provided), Young calls for studies of oxytocin’s effects on brain responses to social stimuli and says that understanding mechanisms and optimizing treatment will hopefully improve social function in ASD and other psychiatric disorders. The claim reflects that prospective argument, rather than asserting a demonstrated increase in treatment efficacy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Finally, in the meta-analysis by Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van IJzendoorn (11) IN-OT seems to have the largest effect size in individuals with autism. Only four studies of autism were included in the analysis and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. However, the larger effect size for autism (d=0.57) compared to all clinical studies (d=0.32)”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [11] Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2013, Sniffing around oxytocin: Review and meta-analyses of trials in healthy and clinical groups with implications for pharmacotherapy, Transl Psychiatry sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Meta-analysis reports d=0.57 for four studies grouped under autism spectrum disorder, compared with d=0.32 across 19 clinical experiments, and cautions that the syndrome-specific evidence is small. But the autism grouping includes Prader–Willi syndrome, and the paper’s Autism spectrum disorders section describes an intravenous OT trial; these figures are not presented as estimates exclusively for intranasal OT in individuals with autism. (LLM, conf=0.85)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In cases where the sample size is below 40 individuals the inflation is very large, but even when N=100, the overestimation of the effect is by no means negligible.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“since the IN-OT studies are underpowered”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, out of the 33 IN-OT papers we investigated, only 3 mention that any correction for multiple comparisons was performed, and in these cases it is unclear how corrections were applied.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effect sizes were estimated for 30 independent experiments comprising 668 individuals in total, weighted by the sample size of the individual experiments. This yielded a summarized effect size of d = 0.76.”
hedgeddirectn = 668- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Button et al. have argued that large-scale phase III clinical trials represent the case when the value of R will be the highest (17).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] Button, 2013, Empirical evidence for low reproducibility indicates low pre-study odds, Nat Rev Neurosci source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For verification, power calculations were also performed using simulation in R (3.1.1) (13) (Figure 1), and yielded very similar results compared to G*Power.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13] Core Team, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Also, the publication culture promotes novel, and often surprising, findings and this will motivate researchers to postulate improbable hypotheses (20).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Bakker, 2012, The rules of the game called psychological science, Perspect Psychol Sci source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Use of multiple analyses on the same data set and selective reports of statistical methods used, or insufficient correction for multiple comparisons, can cause inflation in effects (29).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] Nieuwenhuis, 2011, Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: A problem of significance, Nat Neurosci source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem here is not the underlying hypothesis that OT could be a modulator of human behavior, it is in the certainty in which we can have faith that any particular reported finding represents a true effect.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, since the IN-OT studies are underpowered it does not make sense to try to replicate findings in samples of the same size as the original study. This will lead to many unsuccessful replication attempts due to insufficient power, undermining the original true finding.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, underpowered studies are prone to other types of biases, such as the use of questionable research practices.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Such questionable practices are common in psychology (28), and likely pervasive in other disciplines as well.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] John, 2012, Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling, Psychol Sci source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our calculations are focused on human studies, but we see no reason to expect that these results would differ for other species given OT intranasally, like non-human primates, as long as the dose is adjusted for body weight.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Changes in research practices could increase the trustworthiness of the data.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within the field of behavioral IN-OT studies in humans, there are several other examples of questionable practices including the use of statistical methods, such as unjustified use of one-tailed tests and unexplained exclusion of outliers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However discouraging these estimated values might seem they assume no influence of bias, meaning that the actual PPV values could be considerably lower.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reporting bias and multiple comparisons issues seem to be problems for studies of IN-OT.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased confidence in data from clinical trials involving IN-OT would entice funding agencies and pharmaceutical companies to support more research in the field.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this number represents the true proportion of successful experiments, this would mean that almost all investigated hypotheses within these studies are true.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a research field is, to a large degree, exploratory, the pre-study odds decrease.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Central injections will for obvious reasons never be a common way to administer drugs in humans.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“From a statistical point of view this problem might not be any more serious for this field than other domains of psychology (20, 21, 31) or neuroscience in general (14).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] Bakker, 2012, The rules of the game called psychological science, Perspect Psychol Sci source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [21] Pashler, 2012, Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined, Perspect Psychol Sci source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] Bertamini, 2012, Bite-size science and its undesired side effects, Perspect Psychol Sci source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the larger effect size for autism (d=0.57) compared to all clinical studies (d=0.32) could indicate that focusing on disorders characterized by deficits in social-communicative skills could produce reliable results.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The pre-study odds (R) for behavioral intranasal oxytocin studies in humans is considerably lower than for phase III clinical trials.
“It seems reasonable however to assume that it is considerably lower than for phase III clinical trials.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The studies included in the meta-analyses are representative of the field of intranasal oxytocin studies.
“If the studies included in the meta-analyses are representative of the field, statistical power values of 16% for studies investigating IN-OT effects in healthy subjects and 12% in clinical trials are certainly very low, but not very different from studies in neuroscience in general (average power = 21%) (14).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Studying behavioral effects of oxytocin is at the moment a hot research topic, attracting many new research groups, and studies within this field have been published in very high impact journals such as Science and Nature.
“Studying behavioral effects of OT is at the moment a hot research topic, attracting many new research groups, and studies within this field have been published in very high impact journals such as Science and Nature.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Nasal sprays purportedly containing oxytocin are available on the internet for a variety of indications.
“Nasal sprays purportedly containing OT are available on the internet for a variety of indications”
The paper relies on this without support.
Parents are increasingly seeking intranasal oxytocin as a therapy for their children with autism.
“parents are increasingly seeking IN-OT as a therapy for their children with autism.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 33 intranasal oxytocin papers published in 2014 are representative of the field of behavioral intranasal oxytocin studies.
“We investigated to what extent low power is reflected in behavioral IN-OT studies by examining the proportion of positive effects published in 2014 (described in Supplemental information).”
The paper relies on this without support.
OT enhances the salience and reinforcing value of social stimuli in animals.
“Research in animals suggest that OT enhances the salience and reinforcing value of social stimuli”
The paper relies on this without support.
The vole partner preference test results with central OT/vasopressin manipulation are informative about human IN-OT effect sizes.
“Specifically, we focused on vole studies using the partner preference test to assess behavior, a literature well known by the authors.”
“these results indicate that larger effect sizes can be achieved by more efficient routes of administration.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A recent meta-analysis of published studies involving IN-OT in humans (21) demonstrated that most studies are dramatically underpowered 1 and report overestimated effects.”
From Is there a Publication Bias in Behavioural Intranasal Oxytocin Research on Humans? Opening the File Drawer of One Laboratory (2016) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The lack of a convincing theoretical framework that allows to predict which moderators exert their effects and when, has raised healthy skepticism regarding the robustness of human behavioral IN-OT research (20,21).”
From Is there a Publication Bias in Behavioural Intranasal Oxytocin Research on Humans? Opening the File Drawer of One Laboratory (2016) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The meta-analysts estimated (using information on power, pre-study odds and the alpha level) that the false discovery rate in the IN-OT literature is over 80%.”
From Is there a Publication Bias in Behavioural Intranasal Oxytocin Research on Humans? Opening the File Drawer of One Laboratory (2016) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“our studies, like most published studies on IN-OT, might be underpowered (21).”
From Is there a Publication Bias in Behavioural Intranasal Oxytocin Research on Humans? Opening the File Drawer of One Laboratory (2016) · cites this paper as [21]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the use of too small samples (21) and the vast amount of candidate factors that could potentially moderate IN-OT's behavioral effects (19, 20) might inflate the false discovery rate unless direct replication efforts and correction for multiple hypotheses are applied.”
From Is there a Publication Bias in Behavioural Intranasal Oxytocin Research on Humans? Opening the File Drawer of One Laboratory (2016) · cites this paper as [21]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In response to recent reviews that are critical of the quality and rigor of OXT research (Churchland & Winkielman, 2012;Leng & Ludwig, 2016;Walum, Waldman, & Young, 2016)”
From Oxytocin increases attention to the eyes and selectively enhances self-reported affective empathy for fear (2017) · cites this paper as Walum, Waldman, & Young, 2016
In the citing paper
“The efficacy of oxytocin (OT) in improving social abilities is under debate, largely due to frequently observed weak effect sizes and problems with replicability (1–3).”
From Oxytocin under opioid antagonism leads to supralinear enhancement of social attention (2017) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Specifically, there has been a significant gap in the understanding of the neural systems responsive to OT and AVP in primates, and the use of intranasal OT (IN-OT) in humans, in particular, has advanced rapidly despite a lack of knowledge of the mechanism or neurological targets engaged by this manipulation (11-13).”
From Comparative Perspectives on Oxytocin and Vasopressin Receptor Research in Rodents and Primates: Translational Implications (2016) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“IN-OT studies even in humans are often underpowered given the modest effect sizes, making the interpretation of studies with few subjects unreliable (11).”
From Comparative Perspectives on Oxytocin and Vasopressin Receptor Research in Rodents and Primates: Translational Implications (2016) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“Walum et al. (2016) also raised concerns about the power of OXT studies, suggesting that a sample size of more than 300 participants is needed to achieve sufficient power, compared to the average of 49 participants (between-subjects) used in previous studies.”
From Oxytocin increases attention to the eyes and selectively enhances self-reported affective empathy for fear (2017) · cites this paper as Walum et al. (2016)
In the citing paper
“given the small sample size, it is possible that the observed treatment effect is overestimated 89.”
From The Analgesic Effect of Oxytocin in Humans: A Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Cross‐Over Study Using Laser‐Evoked Potentials (2016) · cites this paper as [89]
In the citing paper
“This has been suggested to be a particularly big problem in oxytocin research and the potential source of the wide range of different and sometimes contradictory findings arising from different studies (Walum et al., 2016).”
From Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin on interpretation and expression of emotions (2017) · cites this paper as Walum et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“Based on an estimated average small-to-medium effect size of oxytocin effect on social behaviors (d = 0.28, Walum et al., 2016), 80 6-person groups were needed to detect a significant effect (α = 0.05, β = 0.85, ANOVA: repeated measures, within-between interaction, G-Power, Faul et al., 2009).”
From Oxytocin promotes coordinated out-group attack during intergroup conflict in humans (2019) · cites this paper as Walum et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“the effect sizes in most IN-OT studies are small [46]”
From Translational opportunities for circuit-based social neuroscience: advancing 21st century psychiatry (2021) · cites this paper as [46]
In the citing paper
“It has been criticized that most studies examining oxytocin effects have too small sample sizes to even detect medium effects and are therefore substantially underpowered98.”
From Randomized clinical trial shows no substantial modulation of empathy-related neural activation by intranasal oxytocin in autism (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“However, the mounting popularity of studying OT in the social sciences is currently associated with waves of criticism, because papers often have suffered from small sample size, low statistical power, inflated effect sizes, inconsistent experimental procedures , and publication bias 18,19 .”
From A registered replication study on oxytocin and trust (2020) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“recruiting and testing 79 individuals with ASD in a within-participants trial—the number of participants needed to achieve 80% power for the small-to-medium average effect size of d=0.32—would be difficult for many research groups”
In the citing paper
“Many oxytocin studies are statistically underpowered, with clinical studies having an average of 12% statistical power to detect the median Cohen’s d of 0.32.28”
In the citing paper
“Therefore, the corresponding average false-negative rate is large (88%), which probably contributes to poor replication rates.”
In the citing paper
“On average, tests from these unpublished studies were only sufficiently powered to detect an effect of d = 0.78, which is much larger than the average effect of intranasal oxytocin on social cognition of d = 0.28 (Walum et al., 2016).”
From Revisiting non-significant effects of intranasal oxytocin using equivalence testing (2018) · cites this paper as Walum et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“Intranasal oxytocin studies have come under increasing scrutiny, particularly regarding statistical power (Walum et al., 2016).”
From Revisiting non-significant effects of intranasal oxytocin using equivalence testing (2018) · cites this paper as Walum et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“A related issue is that intranasal oxytocin studies reported in the literature contain tests that are generally statistically underpowered (Walum et al., 2016).”
From Revisiting non-significant effects of intranasal oxytocin using equivalence testing (2018) · cites this paper as Walum et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“It is possible that these findings were driven by the fact that smaller studies can sometimes overestimate effect sizes even when no true effect is present (Walum et al., 2016;Zhang et al., 2013).”
From Meta-analytic review of the effects of a single dose of intranasal oxytocin on threat processing in humans (2018) · cites this paper as Walum et al., 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Introduction
“Three values, 12%, 16% and 80%, are used for power, representing the average power of studies of IN-OT in healthy subjects, in clinical trials and the standard for adequacy, respectively.”
§ Introduction
“If the studies included in the meta-analyses are representative of the field, statistical power values of 16% for studies investigating IN-OT effects in healthy subjects and 12% in clinical trials are certainly very low”
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971 · cited 1×
“Using the effect size estimates and median sample size from these studies we calculated the average power, assuming an alpha level of 5%, using G*Power software (12).”
MethodWhy Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“An alternative, perhaps more plausible, explanation is that there could be a significant amount of unpublished negative or inconclusive results, a phenomenon referred to as the “file-drawer effect” or publication bias (23).”
BackgroundPower failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 3×
“From a statistical point of view this problem might not be any more serious for this field than other domains of psychology (20, 21, 31) or neuroscience in general (14).”
BackgroundSimmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567 · cited 2×
“As shown by Simmons et al. (2011), Type I errors are easily inflated when researchers allow themselves to employ undisclosed analytic flexibility regarding choice of statistical model, definition of variables, and the rationale for exclusion of outliers (27).”
BackgroundWhy Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 21×
“For example, if data from 10 independent tests are collected and only reported for one of these, the statistical power is 16% for all tests and the R-value is 0.10, then the PPV goes down from 24% to 17%.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialVisscher, P. M., Brown, M. A., McCarthy, M. I., & Yang, J. (2012) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.11.029 · Cited by 2,425 · cited 1×
“Large-scale collaboration efforts have been successful within fields like human genetics (33) and psychology (34) and replicated findings from these consortia can be considered more reliable.”
BackgroundMeasuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611430953 · Cited by 2,239 · cited 1×
“psychology (28), and likely pervasive in other disciplines as well.”
BackgroundBelieve it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1 · Cited by 1,888 · cited 1×
“Bias of this kind could have serious consequences such as failure to replicate findings (24), and there are also reasons to believe that publication bias is more likely to affect low powered studies (25).”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–343 of 343
Lawford‐Smith, H. (2015)
Young, L. J., & Zingg, H. H. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-803592-4.00056-0
Self-citationThe effects of oxytocin on social behaviour: the influence of context and individual differences
Daughters, K. (2016) · ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University)
The relationship between oxytocin pathway genes and personality traits and psychosis characteristics
Haram, M. (2017) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives
On oxytocin and social behavior
Hovey, D. (2018) · Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (Gothenburg University)
Koppel, L. (2020) · Linköping University medical dissertations · doi:10.3384/diss.diva-171082
Sharma, K. (2020) · Louisiana State University · doi:10.31390/gradschool_dissertations.5408
Pharmacological Characterisation of Novel Oxytocin and Vasopressin Receptor Ligands
Gulliver, D. W. (2021) · The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney)
Krüeger, F. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108770880.017
Neurotechnologies and Psychopathy
Jotterand, F. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-9693-0_6
The Scope and Limits of Moral Bioenhancement
Jotterand, F. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-9693-0_2
Oxytocin as an allostatic agent in the social bonding effects of musicPreprint
Hansen, N. C., & Keller, P. E. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/e7uyj
Williams, D. R., Carlsson, R., & Bürkner, P. (2017) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/97xjz
The Oxytocin System: Single Gene Effects on Social Behavior Across Species
Temple, J. A., & Donaldson, Z. R. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809633-8.90056-6 · Cited by 1
Earp, B. D., & Savulescu, J. (2020) · Manchester University Press eBooks · doi:10.7765/9781526150851.00019
Neuroendocrinology of Social/Affiliative Behaviors☆
Young, L. J. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.02241-0
Self-citationRevisiting non-significant effects of intranasal oxytocin using equivalence testsPreprint
Quintana, D. S. (2017) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/mtde7
Intrathecal oxytocin for neuropathic pain: A randomized, controlled, cross-over trialPreprint
Eisenach, J. C., Curry, R. S., & Houle, T. T. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.11.16.22282417
Climate Change and Human Engineering
Huang, P. (2023) · Handbooks in philosophy · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16960-2_79-1
Better safe than sorry: Oxytocin shifts the regulatory focus
Pfundmair, M. (2023) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2023.106361
Jeung-Maarse, H. (2023) · Research Publications (Maastricht University) · doi:10.26481/dis.20230918hj
Zur Rolle von Oxytocin bei der Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung
Brüne, M. (2023) · PTT - Persönlichkeitsstörungen: Theorie und Therapie · doi:10.21706/ptt-27-4-394
Climate Change and Human Engineering
Huang, P. (2023) · Handbooks in philosophy · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-07002-0_79
Neuroendocrinology of Human Cooperation and Parental Care
Rilling, J. K. (2024) · Masterclass in neuroendocrinology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-51112-7_3
The evolution of oxytocin receptor signalingPreprint
Sartorius, A. M., Theofanopoulou, C., & Quintana, D. S. (2024) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/wcy4t
Revealed masks: Facial mimicry after oxytocin administration in forensic psychopathic patients
Rijnders, R. J. P., Boxtel, A. V., de Wied, M. A., van Honk, J., Kempes, M. M., & Bos, P. A. (2024) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.06.032
Oxytocin salvages context-specific hyperaltruistic preference through moral framingPreprint
Zhang, H., Ni, Y., & Li, J. (2024) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.102756.1
The Evolution of Oxytocin Receptor Signalling
Sartorius, A. M., Theofanopoulou, C., & Quintana, D. S. (2025) · Masterclass in neuroendocrinology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-80209-6_14
Oxytocin restores context-specific hyperaltruistic preferencePreprint
Zhang, H., Ni, Y., & Li, J. (2025) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.102756.2
Deilhaug, E., Moerkerke, M., Sartorius, A. M., Kang, H., Kildal, E. S.-M., Walle, K. M., Elvsåshagen, T., Westlye, L. T., Nærland, T., Andreassen, O. A., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.08.25.25334355
How factors of the therapeutic alliance interact with oxytocin neurotransmission in psychotherapy
Eckert, M., & Schandro, E. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1659841
A comprehensive analysis of oxytocin: a potential brain-based treatment to regulate obesity
Alsayegh, A. A., Ashfaq, F., Bajahzer, M., Alshaharani, M. Y., Almutairi, A. S., Khan, M. I., Alhomaid, R. M., & Beg, M. M. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2025.1708807
“Methodological issues like small sample sizes and a lack of replication undermine the reliability of fi ndings, while observed changes in brain activity may be transient pharmacological effects (32, 33).”
Léonard, F., & Tirelli, E. (2026) · Journal of Trial and Error · doi:10.36850/34b0-42b1 · Cited by 1
New regulators in oxytocin and vasopressin release : role of the endolysosomal two-pore channels
Martucci, L. L. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/027d1ae2zd2ebz4677za019ze6ccd94cafe9
Kiss, O., Topál, J., Berkes, D., Suri, K., & Horváth, J. (2026) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-026-02290-w
“Given the current sample size and the concerns related to the relatively low power of studies on the effects of oxytocin (Walum et al., 2016 ), the strength of evidence for a null effect in this aspect of the results needs to be assessed in future studies with larger sample sizes.”
Sahin, A., Ismah, Herawati, A. A., et al. (2026) · Journal of the Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jns.2026.125963
Deilhaug, E., Moerkerke, M., Sartorius, A. M., Kang, H., Kildal, E. S.-M., Walle, K. M., Elvsåshagen, T., Westlye, L. T., Nærland, T., Andreassen, O. A., et al. (2026) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.70334
“Additionally, as most intranasal oxytocin studies in the social and cognitive domain utilize between-participant designs (Walum et al. 2016), a potential influence of opting for a between-or within-participant de-sign should be investigated.”
Santos, V. H., Paloyelis, Y., Morgado, M., Rodrigues, J. R., Tjeng, R., Fraga, M., Carriço, P., Fernandes, L. P. N. S., & Martins, D. (2026) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2026.107915
Oxytocin increases trust in men low in dispositional trust
Vogt, B., Bengart, P., Declerck, C. H., & Fehr, E. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2602655123
Ameloot, A., Disarbois, É., Elseedy, H., Duperron, C., Grinevich, V., Sirigu, A., & Duhamel, J. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.09.17.751377
“At the same time, the variability previously reported in IN-OT studies likely reflects the combined influence of pharmacokinetic limitations, species differences, individual variability, and differences across behavioral paradigms and social contexts 23,24 .”
Jurek, B., Winter, J. J., & Quintana, D. S. (2026) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2026.1938379
Bayat, D., Pour, F. Z. S., Wu, Y., & Krüeger, F. (2026) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2026.107026
Metadata
- Authors
- Walum, H., Waldman, I. D., & Young, L. J.
- Affiliations
- Emory University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Walum, Hasse
- Venue
- Biological Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 251-257
- ISSN
- 0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4690817
- OpenAlex
- W983974319
- Cited by
- 347
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 40
- FWCI
- 5.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- NIH (R01MH096983, 1P50MH100023)
- NIH OD (P51OD11132)
- Swedish Brain Foundation
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- intranasal oxytocin, social behavior, social cognition, statistical power, publication bias, reproducibility, research reliability, social bonding, parental behavior, individual recognition
- MeSH terms
- Administration, Intranasal, Animals, Brain, Humans, Oxytocin, Research Design, Social Behavior, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
