Previous reports have suggested that close to 90% of cancer biology publications are irreproducible. The low number has recently been corroborated by five detailed replication studies in eLife, which have been commented on in Nature (Replication studies offer much more than technical details. Nature 2017;541:259–60). While the irreproducibility is often attributed to human factors, which are remediable, the reason might be biological and the irreproducibility is intrinsic to such studies. The low reproducibility, reflecting the diversity in the evolutionary pathways of tumourigenesis, will likely significantly impact clinical strategies.
Previous reports have suggested that close to 90% of cancer biology publications are irreproducible. The low number has recently been corroborated by five detailed replication studies in eLife, which have been commented on in Nature (Replication studies offer much more than technical details. Nature 2017;541:259–60). While the irreproducibility is often attributed to human factors, which are remediable, the reason might be biological and the irreproducibility is intrinsic to such studies. The low reproducibility, reflecting the diversity in the evolutionary pathways of tumourigenesis, will likely significantly impact clinical strategies.
Previous reports have suggested that close to 90% of cancer biology publications are irreproducible. The low number has recently been corroborated by five detailed replication studies in eLife, which have been commented on in Nature (Replication studies offer much more than technical details. Nature 2017;541:259–60). While the irreproducibility is often attributed to human factors, which are remediable, the reason might be biological and the irreproducibility is intrinsic to such studies. The low reproducibility, reflecting the diversity in the evolutionary pathways of tumourigenesis, will likely significantly impact clinical strategies. 你能说是1两个人的问题吗？
laohua001 发表于 2025-02-20 13:02 Previous reports have suggested that close to 90% of cancer biology publications are irreproducible. The low number has recently been corroborated by five detailed replication studies in eLife, which have been commented on in Nature (Replication studies offer much more than technical details. Nature 2017;541:259–60). While the irreproducibility is often attributed to human factors, which are remediable, the reason might be biological and the irreproducibility is intrinsic to such studies. The low reproducibility, reflecting the diversity in the evolutionary pathways of tumourigenesis, will likely significantly impact clinical strategies. 你能说是1两个人的问题吗？
根本就不明白，测不到的东西，不是因为没有，是因为方法不适合； 测定很高的，不一定绝对量就高，有可能是响应高； 没有方法学验证的任何检测/定量方法都是垃圾，没有任何reliability。
有一个东西叫内标，添加内部标准品，这些问题都可以解答
就是人家跑胶，elisa 比较了两个蛋白的差异， 发文章reviewer要补充蛋白质绝对定量数据。
于是这个任务就到我这了，结果是毫无差异， 然后就开始将将了。该解释的都解释了，缠一个上午。
更让人生气的是，不知道从哪做的数据，还和我拍桌子。我说你去把他的方法学拿来。 科研不是把样品打到仪器里就万事大吉的。
曾经有个生物的 phd 问我。那个 哥德巴赫猜想 是不是就是要证明 1+1=2？ 我说 姑且算是吧 然后她问 那么在二进制里 1 + 1 = 10 了 是不是哥德巴赫猜想就不成立了？
我无言以对
你好 NIH应该好好整顿一下生物了，至少要培训reliability的观念。
要不然就是浪费纳税人的钱。
wk，那不是普遍造假，尤其是生物制药方面那不是草菅人命
不是这个领域的，想到什么说什么。
reviewer要求补充蛋白质绝对定量的数据，跑胶的差异是不是本来就不是很显著？跑胶在我的理解上是一种估算，不是显著差异的话，的确需要进一步验证。
这个蛋白质绝对定量是怎么测的，有没有可能这个技术的测量范围和样品浓度有偏差？比如说1-10可以灵敏测量，但是这两个样品是 50 和100，那就看不出差异了。
好像搞懂了，就是你发文章的时候有定性的数据但是没定量的数据，现在reviewer要你们提供定量的数据。你做的结果并没说是定量的没差异还是定性的没差异，但好像是重复了他的实验？（后者就是说他前面ELISA的结论是错误的？）
standard curve就是修正这个问题的。
Previous reports have suggested that close to 90% of cancer biology publications are irreproducible. The low number has recently been corroborated by five detailed replication studies in eLife, which have been commented on in Nature (Replication studies offer much more than technical details. Nature 2017;541:259–60). While the irreproducibility is often attributed to human factors, which are remediable, the reason might be biological and the irreproducibility is intrinsic to such studies. The low reproducibility, reflecting the diversity in the evolutionary pathways of tumourigenesis, will likely significantly impact clinical strategies.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6599599/
跑胶不准。ELISA 加上standard curve还是准的。 测蛋白量不是有很多方法吗？怎么会到拍子桌子？
elisa在不同matrix的测定准确度是保证不了的。换matrix是要做validation的。
拍桌子是缠了一上午，没得到想要的吧？！
有一个问题， 你这个数据是为了补充送审文章才做的， 比较两个蛋白的差异，应该是对这片文章的结论有重要意义的，不然reviewer不会挑剔。现在你换matrix，方法变了，得到的结论也不一样， 那是不是等于你这篇文章都推翻了？
Previous reports have suggested that close to 90% of cancer biology publications are irreproducible. The low number has recently been corroborated by five detailed replication studies in eLife, which have been commented on in Nature (Replication studies offer much more than technical details. Nature 2017;541:259–60). While the irreproducibility is often attributed to human factors, which are remediable, the reason might be biological and the irreproducibility is intrinsic to such studies. The low reproducibility, reflecting the diversity in the evolutionary pathways of tumourigenesis, will likely significantly impact clinical strategies.
绝对不止你说的一个两个的。
理科里， 学生物的 数理基础的确是 最差的。
当年清北的生物系比其它理科工科系录取分要高不少，有很多牛人进了生物坑，这些人的逻辑思维都是顶尖的
+1。所以没法当PI没法去工业界
没错，其实生物对化学要求是很高的。 事实是很多学生物学化学就是蜻蜓点水。
我曾经看了一篇文章，竟然用通用UV检测器定量几十f-pmol/mL级别的底物。洋洋洒洒一大篇文章LOL。
楼主自己就很没逻辑：以偏概全！一个或几个搞生物的能代表所有搞生物的？
当年可是最高分啊。
Previous reports have suggested that close to 90% of cancer biology publications are irreproducible. The low number has recently been corroborated by five detailed replication studies in eLife, which have been commented on in Nature (Replication studies offer much more than technical details. Nature 2017;541:259–60). While the irreproducibility is often attributed to human factors, which are remediable, the reason might be biological and the irreproducibility is intrinsic to such studies. The low reproducibility, reflecting the diversity in the evolutionary pathways of tumourigenesis, will likely significantly impact clinical strategies.
你能说是1两个人的问题吗？
那个standard curve也是一个相对的参考数据，不是绝对。 这要看样本和标准的是不是接近，越接近，准确度越高。
恐怕你不知道在美国金融业中有不少是国内原来学生物的吧？数理差？！才怪！
生物的检测方法都挺模式化的， 是什么创新检测吗? 最基本的一点就是找正确的positive/negative control
你列一篇文章做论据？
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6599599/
码农也很多千老转的！
没有直接拒， 要补数据， 那说明大体上是没问题的。现在是人家做出结果写好文章投出去， 都到补数据这一步了。 你的意思是人家结果是错的， 这谁不和你拍桌子？你有100%的把握你的定量检测完全没问题？
你干着生物这行， 还整这些，什么情商？哎，快点转行吧
我觉得你这几句话也是毫无逻辑
你这没啥逻辑啊，论文造不造假和制药关系不大。你不会以为制药公司会拿论文做依据做药物开发吧….
跑胶是SDS-PAGE还是western？ ELISA只做一个dilution factor是不准的，有spike更好。
补充绝对定量数据的时候没有补充相应方法吗？
这些话都是对的。你觉得不make sense是因为你不懂生物。所以请不要随便不懂的事下定义了。
现在给你做疫苗的这一批都是当年国内高考水平最好的一批人。不服就想想当时你服不服人家。
美国疫苗是这些人做的？那我更要鄙视一下，要说高考我这个省前三上物理系的，当时并不服生物的 就事论事，对疫苗伤害无数人的负作用，做生物的无人认真负责的做研究和改进，人命关天，这种不负责的态度就让人觉得不可思议
愚笨的人 总是以个列代替全部
不服！：）高考里理科只占一半好不好，其余的语文政治英文要啥逻辑。真正数理好的人是受不了学生物的，想想那么多要背的，推导又推导不出来，算了。
看看疫苗的设计，连个真正的对照组都没有，基本的实验设计课都不合格，还一个个真认为自己就代表science了
完全同意， 以为他是世界中心， 他留意的就是大家留意的， 他讨论的就是大家该讨论的。 说的好像世界大事， 大家都应该知道。。。
搞了18年生物的在此 感觉你是有点情绪，没关系，情绪我天天有，进实验室就有哈哈哈。 回家辅导孩子又燃起来了，好燃啊
生物主要就是靠逻辑