Rejoinder: An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature

Biostatistics

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 39-45

  Jager, Leah R ^a   Leek, Jeffrey T ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890465866     PISSN: 14654644     EISSN: 14684357     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt038     Document Type: Note

References (24)

1. BAGGERLY, K. A. AND COOMBES, K. R. (2009). Deriving chemosensitivity from cell lines: forensic bioinformatics and reproducible research in high-throughput biology. The Annals of Applied Statistics 3, 1309-1334.
2. BENJAMINI, Y. AND HECHTLINGER, Y. (2013). Discussion: An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and applications to top medical journals by Jager and Leek. Biostatistics 15(1), 13-16.
3. BERGER, J. O. AND SELLKE, T. (1987). Testing a point null hypothesis: the irreconcilability of p values and evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82(397), 112-122.
4. COX, D. R. (2013). Discussion: Comment on a paper by Jager and Leek. Biostatistics 15(1), 16-18.
5. EFRON, B. AND TIBSHIRANI, R. (2002). Empirical Bayes methods and false discovery rates for microarrays. Genetic epidemiology 23(1), 70-86. (Pubitemid 34743158)
6. FLETCHER, R. H. (1989). The costs of clinical trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 262(13), 1842-1842.
7. FREEDMAN, D. H. (2010). Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical- science/308269.
8. GELMAN, A. (2013). I Don't Believe the Paper, "empirical estimates suggest most published medical research is true." That is, Most Published Medical Research May Well Be True, But I'm Not at All Convinced by the Analysis Being Used to Support this Claim. andrewgelman.com/2013/01/24/i-dont-believe- the-paper-empiricalestimates-suggest-most-published-medical-research-is-true- that-is-the-claim-may-very-well-be-true-but-im-notat-all-convinced-by-the- analysis-being-used.
9. GELMAN, A. AND O'ROURKE, K. (2013). Discussion: Difficulties in making inferences about scientific truth from distributions of published p-values. Biostatistics 15(1), 18-23.
10. GOODMAN, S. N. (2013). Discussion: An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature. Biostatistics 15(1), 23-27.
11. GOODMAN, S. AND GREENLAND, S. (2007). Why most published research findings are false: problems in the analysis. PLoS Medicine 4(4), e168.
12. HERNDON, T., ASH, M. AND POLLIN, R. (2013). Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth?: A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Political Economy Research Institute. MA: Gordon Hall of Amherst.
13. HOTZ, R. L. (2007). Most Science Studies Appear to be Tainted by Sloppy Analysis. online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html.
14. IOANNIDIS, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8), e124.
15. IOANNIDIS, J. P. A. (2013). Discussion: Why "An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature" is false. Biostatistics 15(1), 28-36.
16. IOANNIDIS, J. P., NTZANI, E. E., TRIKALINOS, T. A. AND CONTOPOULOS-IOANNIDIS, D. G. (2001). Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nature Genetics 29(3), 306-309. (Pubitemid 33096456)
17. LEEK, J. (2013). Why I Disagree with Andrew Gelman's Critique of My Paper About the Rate of False Discoveries in the Medical Literature. simplystatistics.org/2013/01/24/why-i-disagree-with-andrew-gelmans-crit ique-of-mypaper-about-the-rate-of-false-discoveries-in-the-medical-literature.
18. NEUROSKEPTIC (2013). Is Medical Science Really 86% True? neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2013/01/is-medical-sciencereally-86-true.html.
19. PENG, R. D. (2009). Reproducible research and biostatistics. Biostatistics 10(3), 405-408.
20. PENG, R. D. (2011). Reproducible research in computational science. Science (New York, Ny) 334(6060), 1226-1227.
21. PFEIFFER, T. AND HOFFMANN, R. (2009). Large-scale assessment of the effect of popularity on the reliability of research. PLoS One 4(6), e5996.
22. SCHUEMIE, M. J., RYAN, P. B., SUCHARD, M. A., SHAHN, Z. AND MADIGAN, D. (2013). Discussion: An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature. Biostatistics 15(1), 36-39.
23. STAFF, D. (2007). Is Most Published Research Really False? www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070227105745.html.
24. STOREY, J. D. AND TIBSHIRANI, R. (2003). Statistical significance for genomewide studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(16), 9440-9445. (Pubitemid 37033947)