“You will find that many alternative medicine enthusiasts are into proidiotics.” Sayings of Confuseus

“Assessing the properties of the prediction interval in random-effects meta-analysis” www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Our letter to editor about Caldwell et al (J Appl Physiol 139: 1220–1227, 2025) is published: journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.... There seemed misconceptions about variance comparison stats. We also commented on the author's “SD of treatment effects”. Suppl stuff: zenodo.org/records/1777...

#neuroscience #biomedicine #researchintegrity

How long should it take to retract a paper with incontrovertible signs of data fabrication? Sleuths think 2 months is too long, particularly when clinical risks are involved. deevybee.blogspot.com/2026/01/an-o... #retraction #stemcells #cardiology @erictopol.bsky.social

“An AI scientist, for example, could figure out how the human brain works, or deliver any gene to any cell in the body.” Yeah and a magic pony could shit bricks of 24k gold and piss a highly concentrated solution of pure heroin.

Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics buff.ly/EhQn7JQ

‪It has a name now 😜 Many thanks to Ken for agreeing to put his good name to my...artwork. The image is in the public domain (CC 0), but citations to the linked documents are warmly welcomed. ✅ zenodo.org/records/1808... ✅ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24452418/

The best bit about the show Tipping Point is when the host, Ben Shephard, says "let's find out what would have happened if you'd decided to play". There's always a nagging doubt at the back of my mind: that's not really what *would* have happened, is it?

“Re-examination of the 3/4-law of metabolism” and “Toward a metabolic theory of ecology” statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/12/18/r...

Yeah. And before this, half of reviewers were submitting trivial, short reviews that either said "looks good to me" or "this is excrement". This is why reviews should be part of the public record for any paper. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝘆𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗜 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗜𝗜 𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝘆𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗦𝗜𝗧𝗔𝗥) 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹

Weekend reads: ‘The fall of a prolific science journal’; Clinical trials by ‘super-retractors’; ‘How to Study Things That May Not Exist’

OMG - it’s like the old days of Hindawi AI gobbledegook sandwiches www.nature.com/articles/s41...

More nonsense from Scientific Reports www.nature.com/articles/s41... This article may be many things, but scientific it ain’t

this is one of my favourite observations about sample size calculations. (afaik first articulated by Miettinen in 1985)

For some research studies the optimal sample size should be estimated at 0

“The worrying thing is that most of the published literature is 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 and one wonders 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗳 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.” - spot on @deevybee.bsky.social.

“Like misinformation, misconduct is nothing new. But it’s become easier for authors to execute it with the aid of artificial intelligence and “𝙥𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙨,” while being harder for publishers to contend with, given the volume of potential misconduct cases…” @bmj.com

Anyone that happens to have a fake dataset lying around to be accidentally submitted should probably not be trusted to then provide you with the real one. HT @deevybee.bsky.social www.bmj.com/content/391/...

We did a thing. 😬

“For continuous outcome variables Y where the variance of measurements can be disconnected from the mean, 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑯𝑻𝑬 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒀 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒍 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑….

You categorised patients as responders or non responders by dichotomising a change from baseline? You triple criminal!

“𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒆𝒃𝒐 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑𝒔 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗥 (𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁).” Bell, K.J., Irwig, L., Craig, J.C., & Macaskill, P. (𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟴). British Medical Journal, 336(7640), 361–365. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18276713/

A network of peer reviewers in Italy is targeting medical journals, threatening “both the scientific record and patient safety,” a team of researchers including @deevybee.bsky.social report.

This is an excellent point that generalizes. Researchers often defend suboptimal practices by referring to future studies with better designs. But: Why would anybody run those studies when you can just throw a bunch of variables into a regression and make sweeping "preliminary" claims?

🚨LEAD FEATURE ARTICLE🚨 November 2025✨ We are very excited to announce our lead feature article for the November 2025 by Lolli et al titled ‘Understanding Treatment Response Heterogeneity Using Crossover Randomized Controlled Trials: A Primer for Exercise and Nutrition Scientists’.

Q.E.D.

This is big! Worked with great statisticians on guidelines for meta-analysis & systematic review. We discuss rationales for systematic review, evaluation & interpretation of heterogeneity, & common errors in network meta-analysis, funnel plots etc. www.europeanurology.com/article/S030...

✨ NOVEMBER 2025 ISSUE LINE-UP✨ How are we already on the last issue of 2025?! This year has flown by but lucky for you, the IJSNEM content keeps on delivering. Stay tuned for papers to feature 🔔

Reviewing trial applications and so many are proposing to use mixed effects models with random effects for sites due to "clustering" despite 1) being individually-randomized, and 2) only having a small handful of sites. What is going on!?

“When faced with claims of innovation, some in their caution make nuanced assessments, whereas others in their enthusiasm make newanced endorsements.”Saying of Confuseus

We didn't randomize, and there was no allocation concealment or blinding, and we can't really be sure what intervention they got or how the outcomes were measured, but we emulated a trial by drawing a DAG.

They who are tempted by large language muddles should consider using nopilot.” Sayings of Confuseus

It was a rewarding labour of love to work on this paper with a fantastic team of authors, “Understanding Treatment Response Heterogeneity Using Crossover Randomized Controlled Trials: A Primer for Exercise and Nutrition Scientists”. @hk-ijsnem.bsky.social journals.humankinetics.com/view/journal...

I decided to make the introductory part in three segments: (1) logic (just the basics obviously) (2) epistemology (Vienna circle, K-Pop, Kuhn, Lakatos) and (3) what actually happens in practice (the “recipes for science” angle).>

Good discussion here about what’s wrong with computing change from baseline in a parallel group randomized clinical trial. We need to abandon this practice. stats.stackexchange.com/questions/57... #Statistics #StatsSky

1/6. At present, I am thinking a lot about additive vs multiplicative treatment/intervention effects on tests of athletic performance, or athletic performance itself. I favour exploration rather than blanket assumptions.......

New paper: Tackling paper mills requires us to prevent future contamination and clean up the past – the case of the journal Bioengineered With @deadneanderthals.bsky.social, @smutclyde.bsky.social, @mortenoxe.bsky.social, @thatsregrettab1.bsky.social, and me www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

The paper @elisabethbik.bsky.social, @mortenoxe.bsky.social @thatsregrettab1.bsky.social, @smutclyde.bsky.social, and I wrote together on the troubles over at Bioengineered has now officially been published by... Bioengineered! www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

“…it is 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒆 to determine the summary measure solely by examining either 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙫𝙚𝙨 or mean curves 𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙥. Instead, it is best to study an 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀.” @stephensenn.bsky.social et al. Stat Med. 2000 Mar 30;19(6):861-77.

Whilst the scale and coverage of real world data is appealing, there remain problems with their use. A recent paper by Ali Abbasi, Rob Califf et al flagged some of the core issues – confounding, inadequate documentation, incomplete capture etc 3/9 www.nejm.org/doi/full/10....

There has been a lot of debate recently about the promise of real world data - the routine (observational) data collected on patients eg  treatments received, clinical outcomes etc – for estimating treatment effects. But can they deliver? 1/9 #MethodologyMonday #123

Determining sample size for pilot trials: a tutorial @bmj.com

"With [some AI bullshit] you can go from a rough idea to a structured draft — in just 3 minutes" We're so cooked.

"[T]he scientific enterprise is now witness to widespread, organized defection from the scientific public goods game. Large swaths of players, among them many scientists, reviewers, editors and publishers, are choosing to no longer make genuine contributions to the pot."

Fantastic new paper by @reeserichardson.bsky.social et al. An enormous amount of work showing the extent of coordinated scientific fraud and involvement of some editors. The number of fraudulent publications grows at a rate far outpacing that of legitimate science. www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...

“As the investigation proceeded, it became clear that 𝙖 𝙗𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 of about 35 authors 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 over a very large number of journals and published papers, a fraction of which were published by Frontiers,” @retractionwatch.com

Frontiers to retract 122 articles, links thousands in other publishers’ journals to “unethical” network

here’s a positive suggestion for academic publishing. Journals need to be accredited as meeting integrity standards in order to qualify for APCs enviromicro-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....