Effect of initial conditions on reproducibility of scientific research

Acta Informatica Medica

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 156-159

  Djulbegovic, Benjamin ^a,b   Hozo, Iztok ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY NORTHWEST   (United States)

Author keywords

Initial conditions; Reproducibility; Scientific research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INDEPENDENT VARIABLE; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROBABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 84902476024     PISSN: 03538109     EISSN: 19865988     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5455/aim.2014.22.156-159     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Laine C, Goodman SN, Griswold ME, Sox HC. Reproducible Research: Moving toward Research the Public Can Really Trust. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146: 450-453.
2. Peng RD, Dominici F, Zeger SL. Reproducible epidemiologic research. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163: 783-789.
3. Collins FS, Tabak LA. NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014; 505: 612-613.
4. Yong E. Bad copy. Nature. 2012; 485: 298-300.
5. McNutt M. Reproducibility. Science. 2014; 343: 229.
6. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012; 483: 531-533.
7. Ioannidis JPA. Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research. JAMA. 2005; 294: 218-228.
8. Annonymous. Problems with scientific research. How science goes wrong. Economist. 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong/print. Accessed April 27, 2014.
9. Steneck N. Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Washington, DC: Health and Human Services Dept., Office of Research Integrity. 2004.
10. Anonymous. Butterfl y effect. 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect. Accessed April 27, 2014.
11. Appelt KC, Milch KF, Handgraaf MJJ, Weber EU. The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research. Judgment and Decision Making. 2011; 6: 252-262.
12. May RM. Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics. Nature. 1976; 261: 459-467.
13. Freedman DH. Wrong. Why experts keep failing usand how to know when not to trust them. New York: Little Brown & Co., 2010.
14. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005; 435: 737-738.
15. Senn S. Seven myths of randomisation in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2013; 32: 1439-1450.
16. Drummond C. Replicability is not Reproducibility:Nor is it Good Science. Proc. of the Evaluation Methods for Machine Learning Workshop at the 26th ICML. Montreal, Canada, 2009.