How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science
Open accessAbstract
Trust in scientific research is diminished by evidence that data are being manipulated. Outcome switching, data dredging and selective publication are some of the problems that undermine the integrity of published research. Methods for using blockchain to provide proof of pre-specified endpoints in clinical trial protocols were first reported by Carlisle. We wished to empirically test such an approach using a clinical trial protocol where outcome switching has previously been reported. Here we confirm the use of blockchain as a low cost, independently verifiable method to audit and confirm the reliability of scientific studies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
There has been no study to evaluate the use of blockchain technology in an mHealth system.
“However, there has been no study to evaluate the use of blockchain technology in an mHealth system.”
From Tamper-Resistant Mobile Health Using Blockchain Technology. (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
The Introduction and Discussion describe testing blockchain timestamps for clinical-trial protocols, not surveying blockchain use in mHealth systems. Searches for mHealth, mobile health systems, and the claimed absence of studies found no passage addressing whether such evaluations exist. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 6 · Cited by 59
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [2]WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2016 Reference Source 19886379
- [4]Slade E Drysdale H Goldacre B: Discrepancies Between Prespecified and Reported Outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164(5): 374. 10.7326/L15-0614 26720309 · DOI
- [5]Goldacre B: How to get all trials reported: audit, better data, and individual accountability. PLoS Med. 2015; 12(4): e1001821. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001821 25874719 PMC4396123 · DOI
- [12]Anand V Scales DC Parshuram CS: Registration and design alterations of clinical trials in critical care: a cross-sectional observational study. Intensive Care Med. 2014; 40(5): 700– 22. 10.1007/s00134-014-3250-7 24737256 · DOI
- [14]Irving G Holden J: Dataset 1 in: How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science. F1000Research. 2017 Data Source PMC4866630 27239273
- Authors
- Irving, G., & Holden, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Irving, Greg
- ORCID
- Irving, Greg
- Venue
- F1000Research
- Publisher
- F1000 Research Ltd
- Published
- 2017-03-30
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 222
- ISSN
- 2046-1402 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4866630
- OpenAlex
- W2325344784
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 16.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Status
- Retracted
- Update notices
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- F1000Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology in Education and Learning
- Keywords
- blockchain, data integrity, selective publication, p-hacking, research integrity, auditability, research trustworthiness
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
