Empirical evidence for low reproducibility indicates low pre-study odds
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Large-scale phase III clinical trials represent the case when the value of pre-study odds (R) will be the highest.
“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).”
From Statistical and Methodological Considerations for the Interpretation of Intranasal Oxytocin Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [17]
Cites
Power 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 · see citing works
Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/483531a · Cited by 2,979 · see citing works
Believe 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 · see citing works
Type S error rates for classical and Bayesian single and multiple comparison procedures
Gelman, A., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2000) · Computational Statistics · doi:10.1007/s001800000040 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Mobley, A. K., Linder, S. K., Braeuer, R. R., Ellis, L. M., & Zwelling, L. A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063221 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Trial unpredictability yields predictable therapy gains
Djulbegovic, B., Kumar, A., Glasziou, P., Miladinovic, B., & Chalmers, I. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/500395a · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Hoppe, C. (2013) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475-c5 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Okon-Singer, H., Hendler, T., Pessoa, L., & Shackman, A. J. (2015) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00058 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Emerging Role of Precision Medicine in Cardiovascular Disease
Leopold, J. A., & Loscalzo, J. (2018) · Circulation Research · doi:10.1161/circresaha.117.310782 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
“This view leads to the expectation that complex molecular mechanisms link genes responsible for both endophenotypes and phenotypes.(66) Thus, genetic effects on endophenotype and phenotype do not necessarily have to be the same in different populations, and genetic predisposition to an endophenotype does not necessari…”
BackgroundStatistical 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
“have argued that large-scale phase III clinical trials represent the case when the value of R will be the highest (17).”
BackgroundLow statistical power in biomedical science: a review of three human research domains
Dumas-Mallet, E., Button, K. S., Boraud, T., Gonon, F., & Munafò, M. R. (2017) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.160254 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Self-citationPotential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences
David, S., Naudet, F., Laude, J. R., Raduà, J., Fusar-Poli, P., Chu, I., Stefanick, M., & Ioannidis, J. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-23976-1 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Big little lies: a compendium and simulation of p -hacking strategies
Stefan, A. M., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2023) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.220346 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Improving natural product research translation: From source to clinical trial
Sorkin, B. C., Kuszak, A. J., Bloss, G., Fukagawa, N. K., Hoffman, F. A., Jafari, M., Barrett, B. P., Brown, P. N., Bushman, F. D., Casper, S. J., et al. (2019) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.201902143r · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Scientific productivity: An exploratory study of metrics and incentives
Lindner, M. D., Torralba, K. D., & Khan, N. A. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195321 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Veltman, D. J. (2021) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/7854_2020_209 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Varikuti, D. P., Hoffstaedter, F., Genon, S., Schwender, H. R., Reid, A., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2016) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-016-1286-x · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“There are both indirect (from comparison with task co-activation patterns, (Kwong et al. 1992; Hinke et al. 1993; Buckner et al. 1996; Huettel et al. 2004; Barch et al. 2013)) as well as direct (from invasive recordings (He et al. 1999; Lai et al. 2011; Lu et al. 2014) support towards this notion.”
BackgroundMouchabac, S., Adrien, V., Falala-Séchet, C., Bonnot, O., Maatoug, R., Millet, B., Peretti, C.-S., Bourla, A., & Ferreri, F. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.622506 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Dierolf, A. M., Arlt, L. E., Roelofs, K., Kölsch, M., Hülsemann, M., Schächinger, H., & Naumann, E. (2016) · Hormones and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.02.002 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“Given the current discussion on the a priori power of statistical tests (see Button et al. (2013)), we report the power values for the relevant statistical tests.”
BackgroundCampbell, H., & Gustafson, P. (2019) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2018.1555101 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“This result is in line with the views of many; see, for example, Bakker, van Dijk, and Wicherts (2012), Button et al. (2013b), and Gervais et al. (2015).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialHigh‐dose spironolactone lacks effectiveness in treatment of fibromyalgia (RCT)
Böhm, R., Westermann, P., Gleim, M., Cascorbi, I., Gruenewald, M., Herdegen, T., & Ohnesorge, H. (2021) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1002/ejp.1784 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
“8, but substantially higher compared to various neuroscience studies (Button et al., 2013) or the vast of clinical trials reported in the literature (Lamberink et al.”
ResultHow Cognitive Biases Can Undermine Program Scale-Up Decisions
Mayer, S. E., Shah, R., & Kalil, A. (2021) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780367822972-4 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
The statistical properties of RCTs and a proposal for shrinkage
van Zwet, E. W., Schwab, S., & Senn, S. J. (2021) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.9173 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“The conditional independence condition now says fSNR|b,s(x) = fSNR|z(x), (8)”
BackgroundThe Tangled Knots of Neuroscientific Experimentation
Frisch, S. (2021) · Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s12124-021-09617-9 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Roubertoux, P. L., & Carlier, M. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3777-6_5
(2017) · The Back Letter · doi:10.1097/01.back.0000525806.84264.ef
Behavioral Analysis of NMDAR Function in Rodents: Tests of Long-Term Spatial Memory
Bannerman, D. M., Barkus, C., & Eltokhi, A. (2024) · Methods in molecular biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-3830-9_7
- Authors
- Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- University of Virginia (US)
- Venue
- Nature reviews. Neuroscience
- Published
- 2013-10-23
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 877-877
- ISSN
- 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
- 1471-0048
- OpenAlex
- W2012188291
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (090532)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- reproducibility, replication failure, statistical power, sample size, false positives
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Neurosciences, Sample Size
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.
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
