News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infections in U.S.. Parent comment

Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by passivate on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @06:35PM (#27522474)
> And consider that estimates are as high as 50% of scientific papers’ results are false (especially in bio).

Source?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by nradov on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @10:13PM (#27524128)
Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by passivate on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @10:24PM (#27524188)
Where is the 50% number? Or are you linking to a random paper? (i.e. not the source for the claim)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by nradov on Tuesday June 15, 2021 @10:37PM (#27524263)
Did you even read the paper? "Most" is >50%.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by passivate on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @12:27PM (#27530357)
Nope. You don't invent numbers like that. A claim that includes a specific number needs an actual citation which includes the number.

"Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields" is a ridiculous claim. I don't know a single scientist who believes that. How many scientists have you spoken to in the bio field?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NIH study offers new evidence of early SARS-CoV-2 infecti... by nradov on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @01:02PM (#27530795)
Do you have a substantiave criticism of the paper that I linked?
[ Parent | on HN ]