2,497 publications from this institution
The last decades saw dramatic progress in brain research. These advances were often buttressed by probing single variables to make circumscribed discoveries, typically through null hypothesis significance testing. New ways for generating massive data fueled tension between the traditional methodology, used to infer statistically relevant effects in carefully-chosen variables, and pattern-learning algorithms, used to identify predictive signatures by searching through abundant information. In this article, we detail the antagonistic philosophies behind two quantitative approaches: certifying robust effects in understandable variables, and evaluating how accurately a built model can forecast future outcomes. We discourage choosing analysis tools via categories like 'statistics' or 'machine learning'. Rather, to establish reproducible knowledge about the brain, we advocate prioritizing tools in view of the core motivation of each quantitative analysis: aiming towards mechanistic insight, or optimizing predictive accuracy.
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Internal Medicine HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Internal Medicine journal
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Internal Medicine HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Internal Medicine journal
<p>PDF - 104KB, Ascertainment and review of CEC papers for this analysis.</p>
Abstract Mathematical models have become very influential, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data and code sharing are indispensable for reproducing them, protocol registration may be useful sometimes, and declarations of conflicts of interest (COIs) and of funding are quintessential for transparency. Here, we evaluated these features in publications of infectious disease-related models and assessed whether there were differences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and for COVID-19 models versus models for other diseases. We analysed all PubMed Central open access publications of infectious disease models published in 2019 and 2021 using previously validated text mining algorithms of transparency indicators. We evaluated 1338 articles: 216 from 2019 and 1122 from 2021 (of which 818 were on COVID-19); almost a six-fold increase in publications within the field. 511 (39.2%) were compartmental models, 337 (25.2%) were time series, 279 (20.9%) were spatiotemporal, 186 (13.9%) were agent-based and 25 (1.9%) contained multiple model types. 288 (21.5%) articles shared code, 332 (24.8%) shared data, 6 (0.4%) were registered, and 1197 (89.5%) and 1109 (82.9%) contained COI and funding statements, respectively. There was no major changes in transparency indicators between 2019 and 2021. COVID-19 articles were less likely to have funding statements and more likely to share code. Manual assessment of 10% of the articles that were identified by the text mining algorithms as fulfilling transparency indicators showed that 24/29 (82.8%) actually shared code, 29/33 (87.9%) actually shared data; and all had COI and funding statements, but 95.8% disclosed no conflict and 11.7% reported no funding. On manual assessment, 5/6 articles identified as registered had indeed been registered. Transparency in infectious disease modelling is relatively low, especially for data and code sharing. This is concerning, considering the nature of this research and the heightened influence it has acquired.
Abstracts Background Pilot/feasibility or studies with small sample sizes may be associated with inflated effects. This study explores the vibration of effect sizes (VoE) in meta-analyses when considering different inclusion criteria based upon sample size or pilot/feasibility status. Methods Searches were to identify systematic reviews that conducted meta-analyses of behavioral interventions on topics related to the prevention/treatment of childhood obesity from January 2016 to October 2019. The computed summary effect sizes (ES) were extracted from each meta-analysis. Individual studies included in the meta-analyses were classified into one of the following four categories: self-identified pilot/feasibility studies or based upon sample size but not a pilot/feasibility study ( N ≤ 100, N > 100, and N > 370 the upper 75th of sample size). The VoE was defined as the absolute difference (ABS) between the re-estimations of summary ES restricted to study classifications compared to the originally reported summary ES. Concordance (kappa) of statistical significance of summary ES between the four categories of studies was assessed. Fixed and random effects models and meta-regressions were estimated. Three case studies are presented to illustrate the impact of including pilot/feasibility and N ≤ 100 studies on the estimated summary ES. Results A total of 1602 effect sizes, representing 145 reported summary ES, were extracted from 48 meta-analyses containing 603 unique studies (avg. 22 studies per meta-analysis, range 2–108) and included 227,217 participants. Pilot/feasibility and N ≤ 100 studies comprised 22% (0–58%) and 21% (0–83%) of studies included in the meta-analyses. Meta-regression indicated the ABS between the re-estimated and original summary ES where summary ES ranged from 0.20 to 0.46 depending on the proportion of studies comprising the original ES were either mostly small (e.g., N ≤ 100) or mostly large ( N > 370). Concordance was low when removing both pilot/feasibility and N ≤ 100 studies (kappa = 0.53) and restricting analyses only to the largest studies ( N > 370, kappa = 0.35), with 20% and 26% of the originally reported statistically significant ES rendered non-significant. Reanalysis of the three case study meta-analyses resulted in the re-estimated ES rendered either non-significant or half of the originally reported ES. Conclusions When meta-analyses of behavioral interventions include a substantial proportion of both pilot/feasibility and N ≤ 100 studies, summary ES can be affected markedly and should be interpreted with caution.
As their campaign comes to a close, ICRAM presents a challenge to academic medicine's invisible leaders
Massive data sets are often regarded as a panacea to the underpowered studies of the past. At the same time, it is becoming clear that in many of these data sets in which thousands of variables are measured across hundreds of thousands or millions of individuals, almost any desired relationship can be inferred with a suitable combination of covariates or analytic choices. Inspired by the genome-wide association study analysis paradigm that has transformed human genetics, X-wide association studies or "XWAS" have emerged as a popular approach to systematically analyzing nongenetic data sets and guarding against false positives. However, these studies often yield hundreds or thousands of associations characterized by modest effect sizes and miniscule P values. Many of these associations will be spurious and emerge due to confounding and other biases. One way of characterizing confounding in the genomics paradigm is the genomic inflation factor. An analogous "X-wide inflation factor," denoted λX, can be defined and applied to published XWAS. Effects that arise in XWAS may be prioritized using replication, triangulation, quantification of measurement error, contextualization of each effect in the distribution of all effect sizes within a field, and pre-registration. Criteria like those of Bradford Hill need to be reconsidered in light of exposure-wide epidemiology to prioritize signals among signals.
Selective reporting may spuriously inflate the importance of postulated prognostic factors for various malignancies. We recommend that meta-analyses thereof should maximize retrieval of information and standardize definitions.
The evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic<sup>1</sup> is certainly cause for concern. Proper communication and optimal decision-making is an ongoing challenge, as data evolve. The challenge is compounded, however, by exaggerated information. This can lead to inappropriate actions. It is important to differentiate promptly the true epidemic from an epidemic of false claims and potentially harmful actions.
