Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where?

John P A Ioannidis
{"title":"Evolution and translation of research findings: from bench to where?","authors":"John P A Ioannidis","doi":"10.1371/journal.pctr.0010036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The credibility and replication of research findings evolve over time, as data accumulate. However, translation of postulated research promises to real-life biomedical applications is uncommon. In some fields of research, we may observe diminishing effects for the strength of research findings and rapid alternations of exaggerated claims and extreme contradictions--the \"Proteus Phenomenon.\" While these phenomena are probably more prominent in the basic sciences, similar manifestations have been documented even in clinical trials and they may undermine the credibility of clinical research. Significance-chasing bias may be in part responsible, but the greatest threat may come from the poor relevance and scientific rationale and thus low pre-study odds of success of research efforts. Given that we currently have too many research findings, often with low credibility, replication and rigorous evaluation become as important as or even more important than discovery. Credibility, replication, and translation are all desirable properties of research findings, but are only modestly correlated. In this essay, I discuss some of the evidence (or lack thereof) for the process of evolution and translation of research findings, with emphasis on the biomedical sciences.</p>","PeriodicalId":87416,"journal":{"name":"PLoS clinical trials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1371/journal.pctr.0010036","citationCount":"126","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pctr.0010036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 126

Abstract

The credibility and replication of research findings evolve over time, as data accumulate. However, translation of postulated research promises to real-life biomedical applications is uncommon. In some fields of research, we may observe diminishing effects for the strength of research findings and rapid alternations of exaggerated claims and extreme contradictions--the "Proteus Phenomenon." While these phenomena are probably more prominent in the basic sciences, similar manifestations have been documented even in clinical trials and they may undermine the credibility of clinical research. Significance-chasing bias may be in part responsible, but the greatest threat may come from the poor relevance and scientific rationale and thus low pre-study odds of success of research efforts. Given that we currently have too many research findings, often with low credibility, replication and rigorous evaluation become as important as or even more important than discovery. Credibility, replication, and translation are all desirable properties of research findings, but are only modestly correlated. In this essay, I discuss some of the evidence (or lack thereof) for the process of evolution and translation of research findings, with emphasis on the biomedical sciences.

Abstract Image

研究成果的进化和转化:从实验到哪里?
随着数据的积累,研究结果的可信度和可重复性会随着时间的推移而变化。然而,将假设的研究承诺转化为现实生活中的生物医学应用并不常见。在某些研究领域,我们可能会观察到研究结果的强度效应逐渐减弱,夸大的主张和极端矛盾的快速交替——这就是“普罗透斯现象”。虽然这些现象可能在基础科学中更为突出,但即使在临床试验中也有类似的表现,它们可能会破坏临床研究的可信度。追求意义的偏见可能是部分原因,但最大的威胁可能来自相关性和科学原理的不足,因此研究工作在研究前的成功几率很低。考虑到我们目前有太多的研究发现,往往可信度低,复制和严格的评估变得和发现一样重要,甚至比发现更重要。可信性、可复制性和可翻译性都是研究结果的理想属性,但它们之间的相关性并不高。在这篇文章中,我讨论了一些证据(或缺乏证据)的进化过程和研究成果的翻译,重点是生物医学科学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信