13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Open issues for education in radiological research: data integrity, study reproducibility, peer-review, levels of evidence, and cross-fertilization with data scientists

      editorial
      1 , 2 , , 2
      La Radiologia Medica
      Springer Milan

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We are currently facing extraordinary changes. A harder and harder competition in the field of science is open in each country as well as in continents and worldwide. In this context, what should we teach to young students and doctors? There is a need to look backward and return to "fundamentals", i.e. the deep characteristics that must characterize the research in every field, even in radiology. In this article, we focus on data integrity (including the “declarations” given by the authors who submit a manuscript), reproducibility of study results, and the peer-review process. In addition, we highlight the need of raising the level of evidence of radiological research from the estimation of diagnostic performance to that of diagnostic impact, therapeutic impact, patient outcome, and social impact. Finally, on the emerging topic of radiomics and artificial intelligence, the recommendation is to aim for cross-fertilization with data scientists, possibly involving them in the clinical departments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

            The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                francesco.sardanelli@unimi.it
                Journal
                Radiol Med
                Radiol Med
                La Radiologia Medica
                Springer Milan (Milan )
                0033-8362
                1826-6983
                31 December 2022
                : 1-3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.4708.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 2822, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, , Università degli Studi Di Milano, ; Milan, Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.419557.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1766 7370, Unit of Radiology, , IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, ; Via Morandi 30, 20097 San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6545-9427
                Article
                1582
                10.1007/s11547-022-01582-6
                9804239
                36586083
                c474c61e-57cc-43f4-927c-17165201df4a
                © Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2022

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 26 September 2022
                : 13 December 2022
                Categories
                Editorial

                Comments

                Comment on this article