PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

False-positive pathology: improving reproducibility with the next generation of pathologists

Laboratory Investigation, ISSN: 0023-6837, Vol: 99, Issue: 9, Page: 1260-1265
2019
  • 10
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 26
    Captures
  • 1
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

Most Recent News

The Peer-Review Dilemma

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to provide more context about the scientific debates it describes. It now includes an expanded description of Kristian Andersen’s characterizations of what constitutes typical collaboration during the peer-review process. It has also been updated to clarify that a faculty committee at the University of Florida stated that Joseph Ladapo may have violated

Article Description

The external validity of the scientific literature has recently come into question, popularly referred to as the “reproducibility crisis.” It is now generally acknowledged that too many false positive or non-reproducible results are being published throughout the biomedical and social science literature due to misaligned incentives and poor methodology. Pathology is likely no exception to this problem, and may be especially prone to false positives due to common observational methodologies used in our research. Spurious findings in pathology contribute inefficiency to the scientific literature and detrimentally influence patient care. In particular, false positives in pathology affect patients through biomarker development, prognostic classification, and cancer overdiagnosis. We discuss possible sources of non-reproducible pathology studies and describe practical ways our field can improve research habits, especially among trainees.

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know