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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34628722)

  • 1. Retrospective median power, false positive meta-analysis and large-scale replication.
    Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H; Ioannidis JPA
    Res Synth Methods; 2022 Jan; 13(1):88-108. PubMed ID: 34628722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research.
    Stanley TD; Carter EC; Doucouliagos H
    Psychol Bull; 2018 Dec; 144(12):1325-1346. PubMed ID: 30321017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Publication bias impacts on effect size, statistical power, and magnitude (Type M) and sign (Type S) errors in ecology and evolutionary biology.
    Yang Y; Sánchez-Tójar A; O'Dea RE; Noble DWA; Koricheva J; Jennions MD; Parker TH; Lagisz M; Nakagawa S
    BMC Biol; 2023 Apr; 21(1):71. PubMed ID: 37013585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Harnessing the power of excess statistical significance: Weighted and iterative least squares.
    Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H
    Psychol Methods; 2024 Apr; 29(2):407-420. PubMed ID: 35549315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. "What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research": Correction to Stanley, Carter, and Doucouliagos (2018).
    Psychol Bull; 2019 Jul; 145(7):764. PubMed ID: 31192651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Internal conceptual replications do not increase independent replication success.
    Kunert R
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2016 Oct; 23(5):1631-1638. PubMed ID: 27068542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects.
    Kvarven A; Strømland E; Johannesson M
    Nat Hum Behav; 2020 Apr; 4(4):423-434. PubMed ID: 31873200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. How does under-reporting of negative and inconclusive results affect the false-positive rate in meta-analysis? A simulation study.
    Kicinski M
    BMJ Open; 2014 Aug; 4(8):e004831. PubMed ID: 25168036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science.
    Bakker M; van Dijk A; Wicherts JM
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2012 Nov; 7(6):543-54. PubMed ID: 26168111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does "failure to replicate" really mean?
    Maxwell SE; Lau MY; Howard GS
    Am Psychol; 2015 Sep; 70(6):487-98. PubMed ID: 26348332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Finding the power to reduce publication bias.
    Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H; Ioannidis JP
    Stat Med; 2017 May; 36(10):1580-1598. PubMed ID: 28127782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles.
    Schimmack U
    Psychol Methods; 2012 Dec; 17(4):551-66. PubMed ID: 22924598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 99% impossible: A valid, or falsifiable, internal meta-analysis.
    Vosgerau J; Simonsohn U; Nelson LD; Simmons JP
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2019 Sep; 148(9):1628-1639. PubMed ID: 31464485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature.
    Sterne JA; Gavaghan D; Egger M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2000 Nov; 53(11):1119-29. PubMed ID: 11106885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review.
    Imberger G; Thorlund K; Gluud C; Wetterslev J
    BMJ Open; 2016 Aug; 6(8):e011890. PubMed ID: 27519923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates.
    Friese M; Frankenbach J
    Psychol Methods; 2020 Aug; 25(4):456-471. PubMed ID: 31789538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Low statistical power and overestimated anthropogenic impacts, exacerbated by publication bias, dominate field studies in global change biology.
    Yang Y; Hillebrand H; Lagisz M; Cleasby I; Nakagawa S
    Glob Chang Biol; 2022 Feb; 28(3):969-989. PubMed ID: 34736291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Lessons From Pinocchio: Cues to Deception May Be Highly Exaggerated.
    Luke TJ
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2019 Jul; 14(4):646-671. PubMed ID: 31173537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Meta-analysis of genetic association studies supports a contribution of common variants to susceptibility to common disease.
    Lohmueller KE; Pearce CL; Pike M; Lander ES; Hirschhorn JN
    Nat Genet; 2003 Feb; 33(2):177-82. PubMed ID: 12524541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.