These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26595842)

  • 1. Better P-curves: Making P-curve analysis more robust to errors, fraud, and ambitious P-hacking, a Reply to Ulrich and Miller (2015).
    Simonsohn U; Simmons JP; Nelson LD
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2015 Dec; 144(6):1146-52. PubMed ID: 26595842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. P-curve: a key to the file-drawer.
    Simonsohn U; Nelson LD; Simmons JP
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2014 Apr; 143(2):534-47. PubMed ID: 23855496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An Appraisal of the Carlisle-Stouffer-Fisher Method for Assessing Study Data Integrity and Fraud.
    Mascha EJ; Vetter TR; Pittet JF
    Anesth Analg; 2017 Oct; 125(4):1381-1385. PubMed ID: 28786843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Some properties of p-curves, with an application to gradual publication bias.
    Ulrich R; Miller J
    Psychol Methods; 2018 Sep; 23(3):546-560. PubMed ID: 28425729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. "Meta-analyses and P-curves support robust cycle shifts in women's mate preferences: Reply to Wood and Carden (2014) and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014)": Correction to Gildersleeve, Haselton, and Fales (2014).
    Psychol Bull; 2017 Nov; 143(11):iii. PubMed ID: 29048180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. p-hacking by post hoc selection with multiple opportunities: Detectability by skewness test?: Comment on Simonsohn, Nelson, and Simmons (2014).
    Ulrich R; Miller J
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2015 Dec; 144(6):1137-45. PubMed ID: 26595841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fraud, not error, is why two thirds of biomedical papers are withdrawn.
    Roehr B
    BMJ; 2012 Oct; 345():e6658. PubMed ID: 23033379
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Set up a 'self-retraction' system for honest errors.
    Fanelli D
    Nature; 2016 Mar; 531(7595):415. PubMed ID: 27008933
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Problems in using p-curve analysis and text-mining to detect rate of p-hacking and evidential value.
    Bishop DV; Thompson PA
    PeerJ; 2016; 4():e1715. PubMed ID: 26925335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting.
    Fanelli D
    Nature; 2013 Feb; 494(7436):149. PubMed ID: 23407504
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evidence that nonsignificant results are sometimes preferred: Reverse P-hacking or selective reporting?
    Chuard PJC; Vrtílek M; Head ML; Jennions MD
    PLoS Biol; 2019 Jan; 17(1):e3000127. PubMed ID: 30682013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Six red flags for suspect work.
    Begley CG
    Nature; 2013 May; 497(7450):433-4. PubMed ID: 23698428
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. We need more research on causes and consequences, as well as on solutions.
    Fanelli D
    Addiction; 2015 Jan; 110(1):11-3. PubMed ID: 25515827
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Distinctions between fraud, bias, errors, misunderstanding, and incompetence.
    DeMets DL
    Control Clin Trials; 1997 Dec; 18(6):637-50; discussion 661-6. PubMed ID: 9408726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Are most published research findings false? Trends in statistical power, publication selection bias, and the false discovery rate in psychology (1975-2017).
    Schneck A
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(10):e0292717. PubMed ID: 37847689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Data integrity, reliability and fraud in medical research.
    Baerlocher MO; O'Brien J; Newton M; Gautam T; Noble J
    Eur J Intern Med; 2010 Feb; 21(1):40-5. PubMed ID: 20122612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Significance bias: an empirical evaluation of the oral health literature.
    Kagereki E; Gakonyo J; Simila H
    BMC Oral Health; 2016 May; 16(1):53. PubMed ID: 27150796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. p-Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant Results.
    Simonsohn U; Nelson LD; Simmons JP
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2014 Nov; 9(6):666-81. PubMed ID: 26186117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Error Rates, Decisive Outcomes and Publication Bias with Several Inferential Methods.
    Hopkins WG; Batterham AM
    Sports Med; 2016 Oct; 46(10):1563-73. PubMed ID: 26971328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review.
    Sutton AJ; Song F; Gilbody SM; Abrams KR
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2000 Oct; 9(5):421-45. PubMed ID: 11191259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.