ArticleeLife2022
How failure to falsify in high-volume science contributes to the replication crisis.
Article in eLife, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- "The Dark Side of Musculoskeletal Care": Why Do Ineffective Techniques Seem to Work? A Comprehensive Review of Complementary and Alternative Therapies.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Epidemiological Principles in Claims of Causality: An Enquiry into Repetitive Head Impacts (RHI) and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE).Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- Reproducibility of resting-state functional connectivity in healthy aging and brain injury: A mini-multiverse analysis.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Bridging big data in the ENIGMA consortium to combine non-equivalent cognitive measures.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- ENIGMA's simple seven: Recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of resting-state fMRI in traumatic brain injury.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2024Review
- Bayesian Methods: A Means of Improving Statistical Power in Preclinical Neurotrauma?Neurotrauma reports · 2024Article
- Increasing Rigor of Preclinical Research to Maximize Opportunities for Translation.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023Review
- Establishing ground truth in the traumatic brain injury literature: if replication is the answer, then what are the questions?Brain communications · 2023Review
- Editorial : Reproducibility and replicability in science: A Sisyphean task.Journal of biosciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of scientific papers published every year continues to increase, but scientific knowledge is not progressing at the same rate. Here we argue that a greater emphasis on falsification - the direct testing of strong hypotheses - would lead to faster progress by allowing well-specified hypotheses to be eliminated. We describe an example from neuroscience where there has been little work to directly test two prominent but incompatible hypotheses related to traumatic brain injury. Based on this example, we discuss how building strong hypotheses and then setting out to falsify them can bring greater precision to the clinical neurosciences, and argue that this approach could be beneficial to all areas of science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.