Revisiting non-significant effects of intranasal oxytocin using equivalence testing
Published version of a preprint
Abstract
The effects of intranasal oxytocin on social cognition are mixed, with several non-significant reports casting some doubts on its efficacy. Nevertheless, drawing inferences from non-significant values is problematic as non-significant results can be indicative of either statistical equivalence or insensitive data. Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for statistical equivalence, which can consequently facilitate theory falsification. To improve the inference of non-significant NHST p-values, this paper reports a set of equivalence tests performed on data from a recent meta-analysis synthesizing 32 intranasal oxytocin studies. Data from 26.1% of non-significant meta-analytic effects were indicative of data insensitivity, rather than statistical equivalence. Equivalence tests were also performed on a set of previously unpublished data from one laboratory, to examine whether unpublished data yields similar outcomes. Of the 34 non-significant effects, 73.5% were due to data insensitivity. As these analyses illustrate how non-significant intranasal oxytocin results may not necessarily support the absence of an effect, researchers are encouraged to implement equivalence tests in the design of their studies. By facilitating theory falsification, the adoption of equivalence tests can advance the field by redirecting resources to more promising avenues of research.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Equivalence tests applied to intranasal oxytocin meta-analytic and unpublished data show that many non-significant effects reflect data insensitivity rather than statistical equivalence. Non-significant oxytocin findings therefore cannot be assumed to support null effects, and equivalence testing can aid theory falsification.
Key findings
- Across 28 meta-analytic tests from Leppanen et al. (2017), 23 were non-significant; of these, 6 (26.1%) were not statistically equivalent, indicating data insensitivity.
- Of 8 non-significant primary meta-analyses, only emotion sensitivity was not statistically equivalent (Z = 0.2, p = 0.42; SESOI d = 0.16); of 15 non-significant moderator analyses, 5 were not statistically equivalent.
- In previously unpublished data from Lane et al. (2016), 34 of 35 results were non-significant, and 25 of these (73.5%) were not statistically equivalent; the average smallest detectable effect with 80% power was d = 0.78.
- Only 6 of 43 individual studies in the original meta-analysis (7.2%) had at least 80% power to detect d = 0.5, whereas all 10 primary meta-analyses had at least 80% power to detect a medium effect size (d = 0.5).
Methods
- The two one-sided test (TOST) procedure for equivalence testing was applied to all primary and moderator analyses from Leppanen et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis of 43 intranasal oxytocin studies.
- Equivalence bounds were set to the smallest effect size each analysis had 80% power to detect, using the TOSTER R package (version 0.2.3); two-tailed tests were used for consistency with the original meta-analysis.
- The same approach was applied to previously unpublished data from eight studies reported by Lane et al. (2016), with power calculated using the pwr R package (version 1.2-1) and Bonferroni correction for the number of effect sizes per study.
Limitations
- The paper states that equivalence bounds were power-driven rather than theory-driven; for the unpublished studies, larger power-driven bounds may have led to different conclusions, with more analyses likely deemed inconclusive if smaller theory-driven bounds were used.
- The paper states that meta-analytic equivalence results can only be generalized to the studies included in the meta-analysis, which had its own inclusion and exclusion criteria.
- The paper states that the unpublished sample is not necessarily representative of unpublished intranasal oxytocin research in general.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 14 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
On average, tests from these unpublished studies were only sufficiently powered to detect an effect of d = 0.78.
“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).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
Of the 34 non-significant effects from previously unpublished data from one laboratory, 73.5% were due to data insensitivity.
“Of the 34 non-significant effects, 73.5% were due to data insensitivity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There is no clear theoretical lower boundary for oxytocin's social-cognitive effects to determine the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) for equivalence bounds.
- Findingown data§ RESULTS · p. 4
Of the 34 out of 35 non-significant results, 25 of these tests (73.5%) were not statistically equivalent.
“Of the 34 out of 35 non-significant results, 25 of these tests (73.5%) were not statistically equivalent (Table S1; Figure 2B).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Findingcitation§ RESULTS · p. 3
Across all 28 meta-analytic tests, 23 were non-significant.
“Across all 28 meta-analytic tests (i.e., both primary and moderator analyses), 23 were non-significant (Leppanen et al., 2017).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Leppanen et al., 2017 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
The tests from the unpublished studies by Lane and colleagues were statistically underpowered.
“Although the release of previously unpublished results by Lane and colleagues should be applauded, these tests were statistically underpowered, a potential limitation also noted by the authors (Lane et al., 2016).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lane et al., 2016
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data§ REFERENCES · p. 9
In the meta-analysis, the effect of intranasal oxytocin on fear (overall) was statistically significant (Z = 3.05, p = 0.002).
“| Fear (overall) | 0.2 | 3.05 | 0.002 | 0.15 | 0.56 |”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
Several of these unpublished studies still demonstrated statistical equivalence in spite of inadequate statistical power.
“Regardless, several of these unpublished studies still demonstrated statistical equivalence in spite of inadequate statistical power.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Findingcitation§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
The equivalence bounds for most of the meta-analytic analyses were sufficiently sensitive to reject small-to-medium effects.
“The equivalence bounds for most of the meta-analytic analyses were sufficiently sensitive to reject small-to-medium effects, which seems appropriate as this is the average effect size for oxytocin studies (Walum et al., 2016).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Findingown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 4
The recognition of anger, disgust, sadness, surprise, and happiness after intranasal oxytocin and placebo were statistically equivalent.
“The data provided further support that the effects of oxytocin on basic emotion recognition may be limited to fear, as the recognition of anger, disgust, sadness, surprise, and happiness after intranasal oxytocin and placebo were statistically equivalent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Findingown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 4
Equivalence testing suggested that just over a quarter of non-significant meta-analytic findings for the interpretation and expression of emotions after intranasal oxytocin were due to data insensitivity, rather than statistical equivalence between groups.
“Here, equivalence testing suggested that just over a quarter of non-significant meta-analytic findings for the interpretation and expression of emotions after intranasal oxytocin were due to data insensitivity, rather than statistical equivalence between groups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Findingown data§ REFERENCES · p. 9
In the equivalence test, the effect of intranasal oxytocin on fear (overall) was not statistically equivalent (Z = 0.15, p = 0.56).
“| Fear (overall) | 0.2 | 3.05 | 0.002 | 0.15 | 0.56 |”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
Several effects demonstrate statistical equivalency.
“Some may be tempted to exploit uncertainty surrounding non-significant results by suggesting non-significant effects could be due to data insensitivity, but as demonstrated above there are several effects that demonstrate statistically equivalency.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Findingown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
All ten of the primary meta-analyses had at least 80% statistical power or more to detect a medium effect size (d = 0.5).
“In contrast, all ten of the primary meta-analyses had at least 80% statistical power or more to detect a medium effect size ( d = 0.5), demonstrating how meta-analysis can increase statistical power for the inference of both significant and non-significant effects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ RESULTS · p. 3
Of the eight non-significant primary meta-analyses, only the emotion sensitivity analysis was not statistically equivalent (Z = 0.2, p = 0.42) given a SESOI of d = 0.16.
“Of these eight non-significant primary meta-analyses, only the emotion sensitivity analysis was not statistically equivalent (Z = 0.2, p = 0.42) given a SESOI of d = 0.16.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There is no clear theoretical lower boundary for oxytocin's social-cognitive effects to determine the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) for equivalence bounds.
- Findingown data§ RESULTS · p. 3
Of the 18 moderator analyses, 15 were not statistically significant.
“Of the 18 moderator analyses, 15 were not statistically significant.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given§ DISCUSSION · p. 4
The impact of intranasal oxytocin on overall emotion sensitivity was inconclusive.
“while the impact of intranasal oxytocin on overall emotion sensitivity was inconclusive, its effects on emotional expression were statistically equivalent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Findingreasoning§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
The secondary analysis of unpublished data revealed that almost three-quarters of these non-significant findings could be attributed to data insensitivity, rather than statistical equivalence.
“The secondary analysis of unpublished data revealed that almost three-quarters of these non-significant findings could be attributed to data insensitivity, rather than statistical equivalence.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Findingreasoning§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
Statistical tests from none of eight reported studies were sufficiently powered to detect a medium effect size (d = 0.5).
“In fact, statistical tests from none of eight reported studies were sufficiently powered to detect a medium effect size ( d = 0.5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
For the moderator meta-analyses, 61.1% had at least 80% statistical power or more to detect an effect size of d = 0.5.
“For the moderator meta-analyses, 61.1% had at least 80% statistical power or more to detect an effect size of d = 0.5.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ RESULTS · p. 3
All equivalence tests were still statistically significant after Bonferroni correction of critical alpha values.
“Regardless, all equivalence tests were still statistically significant after Bonferroni correction of critical alpha values.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data§ RESULTS · p. 3
Eight out of ten primary meta-analyses were not statistically significant.
“More specifically, eight out of ten of the primary meta-analyses were not statistically significant (Table 1; Fig. 2A).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation§ RESULTS · p. 4
For the eight unpublished studies reported by Lane and colleagues (2016), the average smallest effect size detectable with 80% power was d = 0.78 (range: d = 0.61 to d = 0.94).
“For the eight unpublished studies reported by Lane and colleagues (2016), the average smallest effect size detectable with 80% power was d = 0.78 (range: d = 0.61 to d = 0.94).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lane et al., 2016
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 4
The effects of intranasal oxytocin on emotional expression were statistically equivalent.
“while the impact of intranasal oxytocin on overall emotion sensitivity was inconclusive, its effects on emotional expression were statistically equivalent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Findingown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
Data from 26.1% of non-significant meta-analytic effects were indicative of data insensitivity, rather than statistical equivalence.
“Data from 26.1% of non-significant meta-analytic effects were indicative of data insensitivity, rather than statistical equivalence.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 3 · hedged
“Of these 23 non-significant tests, 6 were not statistically equivalent (26.1%), which is indicative of data insensitivity (Table 1; Fig. 2A).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There is no clear theoretical lower boundary for oxytocin's social-cognitive effects to determine the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) for equivalence bounds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 3 · hedged
- Premisecitation§ INTRODUCTION · p. 1
The aggregation of effect sizes via meta-analysis can improve statistical power.
“The aggregation of effect sizes via meta-analysis can improve statistical power (Cohn and Becker, 2003)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cohn and Becker, 2003
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationnone given§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
The meta-analytic equivalence test results can only be generalized to the included studies in the meta-analysis, which had its own set of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
“Second, the meta-analytic equivalence test results can only be generalized to the included studies in the meta-analysis, which had its own set of inclusion and exclusion criteria.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
Meta-analysis can increase statistical power for the inference of both significant and non-significant effects.
“In contrast, all ten of the primary meta-analyses had at least 80% statistical power or more to detect a medium effect size ( d = 0.5), demonstrating how meta-analysis can increase statistical power for the inference of both significant and non-significant effects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning§ INTRODUCTION · p. 1
It is uncertain if non-significant p-values in the intranasal oxytocin literature are indicative of either the absence of a relevant effect, or that the data were simply too insensitive to detect an effect.
“Consequently, it is uncertain if non-significant p -values in the intranasal oxytocin literature are indicative of either the absence of a relevant effect, or that the data were simply too insensitive to detect an effect.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 6
The effects of intranasal oxytocin appear to be restricted to specific features of social cognition.
“This analysis demonstrates that the effects of intranasal oxytocin appears to be restricted to specific features of social cognition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
- Interpretationown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 4
The effects of oxytocin on basic emotion recognition may be limited to fear.
“The data provided further support that the effects of oxytocin on basic emotion recognition may be limited to fear, as the recognition of anger, disgust, sadness, surprise, and happiness after intranasal oxytocin and placebo were statistically equivalent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
The average effect of intranasal oxytocin on social cognition is d = 0.28.
“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).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Walum et al., 2016 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation§ DISCUSSION · p. 4
Of the 43 individual studies included in the original meta-analysis, only six (7.2%) reported tests that had at least 80% statistical power to detect an effect size of d = 0.5.
“Of the 43 individual studies included in the original meta-analysis, only six (7.2%) reported tests that had at least 80% statistical power to detect an effect size of d = 0.5 (Leppanen et al., 2017).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Leppanen et al., 2017 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
Underpowered moderator analyses are not necessarily widespread.
“While this demonstrates that underpowered moderator analyses are not necessarily widespread, researchers should be wary of whether these tests are sufficiently powered, as moderator analyses are more likely to include a smaller number of studies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductnone given§ DISCUSSION · p. 5
The equivalence bounds were set to the smallest effect size a given analysis had adequate power to detect, rather than using a theoretical rationale.
“First, rather than using a theoretical rationale to specify the equivalence boundaries using, they were set to the smallest effect size a given analysis had adequate power to detect.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisenone given§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
Drawing inferences from non-significant NHST p-values is problematic because non-significant results can indicate either statistical equivalence or insensitive data.
“Nevertheless, drawing inferences from non-significant values is problematic as non-significant results can be indicative of either statistical equivalence or insensitive data.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · p. 1 · plain
“While these non-significant effects may be discouraging for the field, drawing inferences from non-significant null hypothesis significance test (NHST) p -values can be problematic.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · p. 1 · plain
- Premisecitation§ INTRODUCTION · p. 1
Intranasal oxytocin studies reported in the literature contain tests that are generally statistically underpowered.
“A related issue is that intranasal oxytocin studies reported in the literature contain tests that are generally statistically underpowered (Walum et al., 2016).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Walum et al., 2016 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data§ ABSTRACT · p. 1
Non-significant intranasal oxytocin results may not necessarily support a null effect.
“Altogether, these analyses illustrate how non-significant intranasal oxytocin results may not necessarily support a null effect.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There is no clear theoretical lower boundary for oxytocin's social-cognitive effects to determine the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) for equivalence bounds.
- Premisecitation§ DISCUSSION · p. 6
Equivalence tests can aid theory falsification.
“Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects, however, an additional benefit of these procedures are how they can aid theory falsification.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Morey and Lakens, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
- May combine two claims. 6
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ RESULTS · p. 3Of the 15 non-significant moderator analyses, five were not statistically equivalent: the clinical and healthy subgroup analyses for theory of mind performance, emotion recognition in the clinical group, and the sensitivity to detect sadness and anger.
“Of these 15 non-significant moderator analyses, five were not statistically equivalent: the clinical (Z = 0.85, p = 0.2; SESOI of d = 0.35) and healthy (Z = -1.31 p = 0.1; SESOI of d = 0.28) subgroup analyses for theory of mind performance, emotion recognition in the clinical group (Z = -0.47, p = 0.32; SESOI of d = 0.29), and the sensitivity to detect sadness (Z = 1.13, p = 0.13; SESOI of d = 0.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There is no clear theoretical lower boundary for oxytocin's social-cognitive effects to determine the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) for equivalence bounds.
May combine two claims.
Findingown data§ RESULTS · p. 3On average, primary meta-analyses (n = 10) had 80% power to detect an effect size of at least d = 0.26 (range: d = 0.15 to d = 0.4) and moderator meta-analyses (n = 18) had 80% power to detect an effect size of at least d = 0.43 (range: d = 0.17 to d = 0.94).
“On average, primary meta-analyses (n = 10) had 80% power to detect an effect size of at least d = 0.26 (range: d = 0.15 to d = 0.4) and moderator meta-analyses (n = 18) had 80% power to detect an effect size of at least d = 0.43 (range: d = 0.17 to d = 0.94).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone given§ RESULTS · p. 3The original meta-analysis did not perform multiple test corrections for moderator analyses.
“The original meta-analysis did not perform multiple test corrections for moderator analyses, which is common practice for meta-analyses in the biobehavioral sciences.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ ABSTRACT · p. 1The effects of intranasal oxytocin on social cognition are mixed, with several non-significant summary effect sizes in a recent meta-analysis.
“The effects of intranasal oxytocin on social cognition are mixed, with several nonsignificant reports casting some doubts on the efficacy of intranasal oxytocin.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · p. 1 · plain
“In spite of considerable early promise, a recent meta-analysis of intranasal oxytocin's effect on social cognition yielded varied effects, with several non-significant summary effect sizes, among a few significant effect sizes. (Leppanen et al., 2017).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Leppanen et al., 2017 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · p. 1 · plain
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone given§ MATERIALS AND METHODS · p. 2Equivalence tests allow for the rejection of effects as large, or larger, than a smallest effect size of interest using a frequentist framework.
“equivalence tests allow for the rejection of effects as large, or larger, than a smallest effect size of interest using a frequentist framework.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
Premisecitation§ DISCUSSION · p. 6Studies that do not specify the smallest effect size of interest are unfalsifiable.
“Studies that do not specify the smallest effect size of interest are unfalsifiable (Morey and Lakens, 2016).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Morey and Lakens, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisereasoning§ INTRODUCTION · p. 1Publication bias is an intertwined issue, as unpublished non-significant results may bias meta-analyses that only aggregate published studies, which are more likely to be statistically significant.
“Publication bias is also an intertwined issue, as unpublished nonsignificant results may bias meta-analyses that only aggregate published studies, which are more likely to be statistically significant.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone given§ INTRODUCTION · p. 1Researchers cannot make any inferences regarding the null hypothesis from a NHST p-value, no matter how large the p-value.
“Rejecting the null hypothesis can a useful approach to assess whether two groups vary on a given variable, however, researchers cannot make any inferences regarding the null hypothesis, no matter how large the p -value.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
Interpretationreasoning§ DISCUSSION · p. 4Additional research with larger sample sizes may be required to better assess oxytocin's effects on the sensitivity to recognize basic emotions.
“This indicates that additional research with larger sample sizes may be required to better assess oxytocin's effects on the sensitivity to recognize basic emotions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Appropriately powered tests aid the accurate inference of non-significant results.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Premisecitation§ DISCUSSION · p. 6Pre-specifying equivalence bounds during the planning stages of a study can coax researchers to consider at what point an effect size would be small enough to disprove a hypothesis, along with providing a means to support a pre-specified null hypothesis.
“Thus, pre-specifying equivalence bounds during the planning stages of a study can coax researchers to consider at what point an effect size would be small enough to disprove a hypothesis, along with providing a means to support a pre-specified null hypothesis (Lakens, 2017).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Lakens, 2017
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ DISCUSSION · p. 5Intranasal oxytocin studies have come under increasing scrutiny, particularly regarding statistical power.
“Intranasal oxytocin studies have come under increasing scrutiny, particularly regarding statistical power (Walum et al., 2016).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Walum et al., 2016 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Interpretationreasoning§ DISCUSSION · p. 5The use of larger power-driven equivalence bounds for the unpublished studies instead of smaller theory-driven bounds may have led to different conclusions, with far more analyses likely to be deemed inconclusive if smaller bounds were used.
“However, the use of larger power-driven equivalence bounds for the unpublished studies instead of smaller theory-driven bounds may have led to different conclusions, with far more analyses likely to be have deemed inconclusive if smaller bounds were used.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationreasoning§ DISCUSSION · p. 5The current sample is not necessarily representative of unpublished intranasal oxytocin research in general.
“There are also sure to be several tranches of unpublished intranasal oxytocin studies on a variety of areas, with the current sample not necessarily representative of unpublished intranasal oxytocin research in general.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: There are several tranches of unpublished intranasal oxytocin studies on a variety of areas.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Premisecitation§ INTRODUCTION · p. 1The neuropeptide oxytocin is critically involved in mammalian social behavior.
“The neuropeptide oxytocin is critically involved in mammalian social behavior (Donaldson and Young, 2008; Insel, 1992).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Donaldson and Young, 2008 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Insel, 1992
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Premisereasoning§ ABSTRACT · p. 1Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for statistical equivalence, which can facilitate theory falsification.
“Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for statistical equivalence, which can consequently facilitate theory falsification.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone given§ MATERIALS AND METHODS · p. 2Bonferroni correction was applied to control the family-wise error rate for the number of effect sizes reported from each study.
“To control the family-wise error rate, significant alpha levels were Bonferroni corrected for the number of effect sizes reported from each study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no clear theoretical lower boundary for oxytocin's social-cognitive effects to determine the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) for equivalence bounds.
“There is no clear theoretical lower boundary for oxytocin's social-cognitive effects to determine the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI) for equivalence bounds.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The focus of statistical power issues has been largely directed towards tests yielding significant results rather than non-significant results.
“However, the focus of statistical power issues has been largely directed towards tests yielding significant results rather than non-significant results.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Appropriately powered tests aid the accurate inference of non-significant results.
“As appropriately powered tests aid the accurate inference of non-significant results, researchers should apply the same constructive skepticism for non-significant studies as for significant studies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects.
“Equivalence tests can be used to assess evidence for reported effects, however, an additional benefit of these procedures are how they can aid theory falsification.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are several tranches of unpublished intranasal oxytocin studies on a variety of areas.
“There are also sure to be several tranches of unpublished intranasal oxytocin studies on a variety of areas, with the current sample not necessarily representative of unpublished intranasal oxytocin research in general.”
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?
Without precise targets, it is unclear whether non-significant effects of intranasal oxytocin, beyond insufficient statistical power, are due to an inefficacious drug or misidentified drug targets.
“Without precise targets, it is unclear whether non-significant effects of intranasal oxytocin, beyond insufficient statistical power71, are due to an inefficacious drug or misidentified drug targets.”
From Oxytocin pathway gene networks in the human brain (2019) · cites this paper as [71]
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Inconsistent p-value: Z = 0.92, p = .34
MinorThe paper reports p = .34 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .358 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.
Reported p = .34 · recomputed p = .358
“Z = 0.92, p = 0.34”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upz = 0.92reported p = .34 · recomputed p = .358
“Z = 0.92, p = .34”
- Consistentz = 0.2reported p = .42 · recomputed p = .841
“(Z = 0.2, p = .42”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 0.85reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .395
“(Z = 0.85, p = .2”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -0.47reported p = .32 · recomputed p = .638
“(Z = -0.47, p = .32”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 1.13reported p = .13 · recomputed p = .258
“(Z = 1.13, p = .13”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 1reported p = .16 · recomputed p = .317
“(Z = 1, p = .16”
- Consistentz = 0.5reported p = .62 · recomputed p = .617
“Z = 0.5, p = .62”
- Consistentz = -2.34reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .019
“Z = -2.34, p = .01”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 0.72reported p = .47 · recomputed p = .472
“Z = 0.72, p = .47”
- Consistentz = -2.09reported p = .018 · recomputed p = .037
“Z = -2.09, p = .018”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 3.18reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“Z = 3.18, p = .001”
- Consistentz = 2.05reported p = .98 · recomputed p = .040
“Z = 2.05, p = .98”
The paper states the test is one-tailed in the other direction
- Consistentz = 0.98reported p = .33 · recomputed p = .327
“Z = 0.98, p = .33”
- Consistentz = -1.81reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .070
“Z = -1.81, p = .04”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -1.46reported p = .15 · recomputed p = .144
“Z = -1.46, p = .15”
- Consistentz = 1.31reported p = .1 · recomputed p = .190
“Z = 1.31, p = .1”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -1.6reported p = .11 · recomputed p = .110
“Z = -1.6, p = .11”
- Consistentz = 1.22reported p = .11 · recomputed p = .222
“Z = 1.22, p = .11”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -0.73reported p = .47 · recomputed p = .465
“Z = -0.73, p = .47”
- Consistentz = 2.11reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .035
“Z = 2.11, p = .017”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -0.34reported p = .73 · recomputed p = .734
“Z = -0.34, p = .73”
- Consistentz = 1.84reported p = .033 · recomputed p = .066
“Z = 1.84, p = .033”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -1.64reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .101
“Z = -1.64, p = .05”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 1.65reported p = .1 · recomputed p = .099
“Z = 1.65, p = .1”
- Consistentz = -0.51reported p = .31 · recomputed p = .610
“Z = -0.51, p = .31”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -1.3reported p = .19 · recomputed p = .194
“Z = -1.3, p = .19”
- Consistentz = 1.52reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .129
“Z = 1.52, p = .06”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -1.09reported p = .28 · recomputed p = .276
“Z = -1.09, p = .28”
- Consistentz = 1.79reported p = .037 · recomputed p = .073
“Z = 1.79, p = .037”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 0.62reported p = .53 · recomputed p = .535
“Z = 0.62, p = .53”
- Consistentz = -2.25reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .024
“Z = -2.25, p = .012”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 1.23reported p = .22 · recomputed p = .219
“Z = 1.23, p = .22”
- Consistentz = -1.61reported p = .053 · recomputed p = .107
“Z = -1.61, p = .053”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 0.73reported p = .47 · recomputed p = .465
“Z = 0.73, p = .47”
- Consistentz = -2.11reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .035
“Z = -2.11, p = .017”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -1.92reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .055
“Z = -1.92, p = .027”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 1.79reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .073
“Z = 1.79, p = .07”
- Consistentz = -1reported p = .16 · recomputed p = .317
“Z = -1, p = .16”
- Consistentz = -1.79reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .073
“Z = -1.79, p = .07”
- Consistentz = 1reported p = .16 · recomputed p = .317
“Z = 1, p = .16”
- Consistentz = 1.28reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .201
“Z = 1.28, p = .2”
- Consistentz = -1.55reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .121
“Z = -1.55, p = .06”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 1.58reported p = .12 · recomputed p = .114
“Z = 1.58, p = .12”
- Consistentz = 0.91reported p = .36 · recomputed p = .363
“Z = 0.91, p = .36”
- Consistentz = -1.86reported p = .031 · recomputed p = .063
“Z = -1.86, p = .031”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -0.83reported p = .4 · recomputed p = .407
“Z = -0.83, p = .4”
- Consistentz = 2.01reported p = .022 · recomputed p = .044
“Z = 2.01, p = .022”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 0.05reported p = .96 · recomputed p = .960
“Z = 0.05, p = .96”
- Consistentz = -2.97reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003
“Z = -2.97, p = .003”
- Consistentz = -0.49reported p = .62 · recomputed p = .624
“Z = -0.49, p = .62”
- Consistentz = 2.35reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .019
“Z = 2.35, p = .009”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 0.39reported p = .7 · recomputed p = .697
“Z = 0.39, p = .7”
- Consistentz = -2.47reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .014
“Z = -2.47, p = .007”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -0.58reported p = .56 · recomputed p = .562
“Z = -0.58, p = .56”
- Consistentz = 2.25reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .024
“Z = 2.25, p = .012”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -0.47reported p = .64 · recomputed p = .638
“Z = -0.47, p = .64”
- Consistentz = 2.37reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .018
“Z = 2.37, p = .01”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 0.12reported p = .91 · recomputed p = .904
“Z = 0.12, p = .91”
- Consistentz = -2.72reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .007
“Z = -2.72, p = .003”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 0.27reported p = .79 · recomputed p = .787
“Z = 0.27, p = .79”
- Consistentz = -2.56reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .010
“Z = -2.56, p = .005”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = 0.36reported p = .72 · recomputed p = .719
“Z = 0.36, p = .72”
- Consistentz = -2.03reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .042
“Z = -2.03, p = .02”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -0.23reported p = .82 · recomputed p = .818
“Z = -0.23, p = .82”
- Consistentz = 2.62reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .009
“Z = 2.62, p = .004”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -1.15reported p = .25 · recomputed p = .250
“Z = -1.15, p = .25”
- Consistentz = 1.68reported p = .046 · recomputed p = .093
“Z = 1.68, p = .046”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -1.7reported p = .1 · recomputed p = .089
“Z = -1.7, p = .1”
- Consistentz = 1.11reported p = .13 · recomputed p = .267
“Z = 1.11, p = .13”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentz = -0.1reported p = .92 · recomputed p = .920
“Z = -0.1, p = .92”
- Consistentz = 2.76reported p = .0029 · recomputed p = .006
“Z = 2.76, p = .0029”
The paper states a one-tailed test
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Percentage of adequately powered individual studies is incorrect
MinorSix of 43 studies is 14.0%, not 7.2%.
Reported 7.2 · recomputed 13.953488
“Of the 43 individual studies included in the original meta-analysis, only six (7.2%)”
Cites
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567 · see citing works
Schuirmann, D. J. (1987) · Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics · doi:10.1007/bf01068419 · Cited by 2,696 · see citing works
Lakens, D. (2017) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550617697177 · Cited by 2,161 · see citing works
Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality
Donaldson, Z. R., & Young, L. J. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1158668 · Cited by 1,645 · see citing works
Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors
Gelman, A., & Carlin, J. (2014) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614551642 · Cited by 1,343 · see citing works
How Many Studies Do You Need?: A Primer on Statistical Power for Meta-Analysis
Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/1076998609346961 · Cited by 1,294 · see citing works
Repeated Significance Tests on Accumulating Data
Armitage, P., McPherson, C. K., & Rowe, B. C. (1969) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2343787 · Cited by 776 · see citing works
Intranasal Oxytocin: Myths and Delusions
Leng, G., & Ludwig, M. (2016) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.05.003 · Cited by 615 · see citing works
How meta-analysis increases statistical power.
Cohn, L. D., & Becker, B. J. (2003) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.8.3.243 · Cited by 500 · see citing works
Performing high‐powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses
Lakens, D. (2014) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2023 · Cited by 414 · see citing works
Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies
Walum, H., Waldman, I. D., & Young, L. J. (2016) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.06.016 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
A new statistical procedure for testing equivalence in two-group comparative bioavailability trials
Hauck, W. W., & Anderson, S. (1984) · Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics · doi:10.1007/bf01063612 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin on interpretation and expression of emotions
Leppanen, J., Ng, K. W., Tchanturia, K., & Treasure, J. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.010 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Lane, A., Luminet, O., Nave, G., & Mikolajczak, M. (2016) · Journal of Neuroendocrinology · doi:10.1111/jne.12384 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Quintana, D. S., Guastella, A. J., Westlye, L. T., & Andreassen, O. A. (2016) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/mp.2015.166 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Self-citationAlvares, G. A., Quintana, D. S., & Whitehouse, A. J. O. (2017) · Autism Research · doi:10.1002/aur.1692 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Self-citationBürkner, P., Williams, D. R., Simmons, T. C., & Woolley, J. D. (2017) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbx053 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Why Most Of Psychology Is Statistically Unfalsifiable
Morey, R., & Lakens, D. (2016) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.838685 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Why Most Of Psychology Is Statistically Unfalsifiable
Morey, R., & Lakens, D. (2016) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.838684 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Oxytocin pathway gene networks in the human brain
Quintana, D. S., Rokicki, J., van der Meer, D., Alnæs, D., Kaufmann, T., Córdova-Palomera, A., Dieset, I., Andreassen, O. A., & Westlye, L. T. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08503-8 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
Self-citationQuintana, D. S., Lischke, A., Grace, S., Scheele, D., Ma, Y., & Becker, B. (2021) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41380-020-00864-7 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Self-citationAn Allostatic Theory of Oxytocin
Quintana, D. S., & Guastella, A. J. (2020) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2020.03.008 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Self-citationThe New Statistics for Better Science: Ask How Much, How Uncertain, and What Else Is Known
Calin-Jageman, R. J., & Cumming, G. (2019) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2018.1518266 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Steinman, M. Q., Duque-Wilckens, N., & Trainor, B. C. (2019) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.10.008 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Evidence for Intranasal Oxytocin Delivery to the brain: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives
Quintana, D. S., Smerud, K. T., Andreassen, O. A., & Djupesland, P. G. (2018) · Therapeutic Delivery · doi:10.4155/tde-2018-0002 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Self-citationRoberts, C. A., Jones, A., Sumnall, H., Gage, S. H., & Montgomery, C. (2020) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.07.002 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Improving the precision of intranasal oxytocin research
Winterton, A., Westlye, L. T., Steen, N. E., Andreassen, O. A., & Quintana, D. S. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-00996-4 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Self-citationTabak, B. A., Teed, A. R., Castle, E., Dutcher, J. M., Meyer, M. L., Bryan, R., Irwin, M. R., Lieberman, M. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2019) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.04.019 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Tully, J., Gabay, A. S., Brown, D., Murphy, D., & Blackwood, N. (2017) · Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2017.11.017 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Heirene, R. M. (2020) · Addiction Research & Theory · doi:10.1080/16066359.2020.1751130 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Quintana, D. S. (2020) · Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.cpnec.2020.100014 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Role of Intranasal Oxytocin on Social Cognition: an Integrative Human Lifespan Approach
Horta, M., Pehlivanoglu, D., & Ebner, N. C. (2020) · Current Behavioral Neuroscience Reports · doi:10.1007/s40473-020-00214-5 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Strauss, G. P., Granholm, E. L., Holden, J. L., Ruiz, I., Gold, J. M., Kelly, D. L., & Buchanan, R. W. (2018) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291718002465 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Quintana, D. S. (2021) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105642 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationBaracz, S. J., Robinson, K. J., Wright, A. L., Turner, A. J., McGregor, I. S., Cornish, J. L., & Everett, N. A. (2022) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-022-01336-y · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Brain areas affected by intranasal oxytocin show higher oxytocin receptor expression
Habets, P. C., Mclain, C., & Meijer, O. C. (2021) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.15447 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
What to make of equivalence testing with a post-specified margin?
Campbell, H., & Gustafson, P. (2021) · Meta-Psychology · doi:10.15626/mp.2020.2506 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Quintana, D. S. (2018) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationThe role of trust in the social heuristics hypothesis
Montealegre, A., & Jiménez‐Leal, W. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216329 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Quintana, D. S., Rokicki, J., van der Meer, D., Alnæs, D., Kaufmann, T., Córdova‐Palomera, A., Dieset, I., Andreassen, O. A., & Westlye, L. T. (2017) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/149526 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citation-Phasic Model of xytocin (): A systematic conceptual review of oxytocin-related ERP research
Pehlivanoglu, D., Myers, E., & Ebner, N. C. (2020) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2020.107917 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
The Influence of Reward on Facial Mimicry: No Evidence for a Significant Effect of Oxytocin
Trilla, I., Drimalla, H., Bajbouj, M., & Dziobek, I. (2020) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2020.00088 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Opioids and the hormone oxytocin
Kovatsi, L., & Nikolaou, K. (2019) · Vitamins and hormones · doi:10.1016/bs.vh.2019.05.003 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
What to make of non-inferiority and equivalence testing with a post-specified margin?Preprint
Campbell, H., & Gustafson, P. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.03413 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
The New Statistics for Better Science: Ask How Much, How Uncertain, and What Else is KnownPreprint
Calin-Jageman, R. J., & Cumming, G. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/3mztg · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Cortes, D. S., Skragge, M., Döllinger, L., Laukka, P., Fischer, H., Nilsson, M. E., Hovey, D., Westberg, L., Larsson, M., & Granqvist, P. (2018) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsy068 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Oxytocin in clinical settings: A three-stage roadmap for responsible translation
Riem, M. M. E., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J. (2025) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106257 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Intranasal oxytocin interacts with testosterone reactivity to modulate parochial altruism
Cherki, B. R., Winter, E., Mankuta, D., Zerbib, S., & Israel, S. (2024) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-024-00066-9 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Oxytocin Discrepancies in Social Dynamics.
Maltese, F., & Papaleo, F. (2020) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2020.07.027 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Knaggs, H., Tabor, G., & Williams, J. M. (2021) · Comparative Exercise Physiology · doi:10.3920/cep210001 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
The Role of Trust in the Social Heuristics HypothesisPreprint
Montealegre, A., & Jiménez‐Leal, W. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/d6wkq · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Evidence for intranasal oxytocin delivery to the brain: recent advances and future perspectivesPreprint
Quintana, D. S., Smerud, K. T., Andreassen, O. A., & Djupesland, P. G. (2018) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/fnhx5 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationPaul, S., Verma, J., & Mehan, S. (2026) · Neuropeptides · doi:10.1016/j.npep.2026.102597 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Kroll, C., Schruers, K. R. J., Viechtbauer, W., Vingerhoets, C., Seidel, L., Riedl, A. M., & Hernaus, D. (2026) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2026.03.006 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
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
Self-citationDiffley, S., Kubina, R. M., Noone, C., & McTiernan, A. (2025) · Behavioral Interventions · doi:10.1002/bin.70039
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
Self-citation
- Authors
- Quintana, D. S.
- Affiliations
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Quintana, Daniel S.
- ORCID
- Quintana, Daniel S.
- Venue
- Psychoneuroendocrinology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 87
- Pages
- 127-130
- ISSN
- 0306-4530 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2761891498
- Semantic Scholar
- a6d59bdedaa9042903a8051ec2709a795a0a2183
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 10.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychoneuroendocrinology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF16OC0019856)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- intranasal oxytocin, equivalence testing, non-significant results, statistical equivalence, social cognition, meta-analysis, unpublished data, null hypothesis significance testing
- MeSH terms
- Equivalence Trials as Topic, Administration, Intranasal, Emotions, Humans, Oxytocin, Social Behavior, 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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.
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
