False-positive pathology: improving reproducibility with the next generation of pathologists
Laboratory Investigation, ISSN: 0023-6837, Vol: 99, Issue: 9, Page: 1260-1265
2019
- 10Citations
- 26Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations10
- Citation Indexes10
- 10
- CrossRef8
- Captures26
- Readers26
- 26
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- 1
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.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0023683722025867; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41374-019-0257-2; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85064955840&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31019290; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0023683722025867; https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41374-019-0257-2
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know