e-ISSN: Pending
Negative / Null Result ReportOpen accessDecision Sciences· cited by 37

The intriguing evolution of effect sizes in biomedical research over time: smaller but more often statistically significant

Paul Monsarrat; Jean‐Noël Vergnes · 2017 · GigaScience

WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate

The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.

Abstract

Background: In medicine, effect sizes (ESs) allow the effects of independent variables (including risk/protective factors or treatment interventions) on dependent variables (e.g., health outcomes) to be quantified. Given that many public health decisions and health care policies are based on ES estimates, it is important to assess how ESs are used in the biomedical literature and to investigate potential trends in their reporting over time. Results: Through a big data approach, the text mining process automatically extracted 814 120 ESs from 13 322 754 PubMed abstracts. Eligible ESs were risk

Abstract by Paul Monsarrat; Jean‐Noël Vergnes, GigaScience (2017) — licensed CC BY 4.0.

About to run something similar?

Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.

WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.

Metadata source: OpenAlex · DOI 10.1093/gigascience/gix121