connectionkmfk.blogg.se

In definition 1, reproducibility is taken to be aīinary concept: a result is either reproduced or not. Note the following differences between definitions 1 and 2: (i) “The degree of agreement among a set of observations after all known sources of error are accounted for (Synonym, precision)” Our addition] is reproducible if the results are identical or closely similar each time it is conducted (Synonym, repeatability)” Our addition] results may be expected to lie with a probability of 95%, when the results are obtained by the same method and equipment from identical test material in the same setting by the same operator within short intervals of time. “The value below which the absolute difference between two single test [or study, Discussionīox 1 shows two formal definitions of the concept of reproducibility. We propose that investigators aiming to reproduce others’ findings should pay more attention to predefining a margin of (unacceptable) discordance with existing findings.

Sensu stricto and we revisit some basic definitions of reproducibility, notice that these definitions are problematic, and argue that the concept of equivalence in randomized trials may be fruitfully applied to sharpen our understanding of what we mean by reproducibility. We read their paper as being about truth although its title suggests otherwise. did define three types of reproducibility (methods, results, and inferences) and stated that confusion arises when, inadvertently, people use reproducibility as a synonym for “truth”Ħ. Others called irreproducible results ‘biased’Ĭoming from a background of meta-analysis with its countless examples of unexplained heterogeneity and an ingrained appreciation of sampling variability, we were surprised that these outcries cited above were not accompanied by a formal definition of the concept of reproducibility. False-positive initial results due to random chance or incorrect study design were among the reasons implicated, as well as data-dredging, publication bias and misconduct. Nevertheless, poor reproducibility has recently been shown to haunt preclinical researchĥ.

Reproducibility is said to be a core principle of scientific progress.