Do I understand this right? The FDA approval process is itself susceptible to the same statistical traps that research papers fall into? Do they do more reproducibility work than the journals do, because my recent work suggests as much as 45% of published works may deserve meaningful correction at best and often outright retraction.
Yes, it is a trap for research in general. Does the FDA do more reproducibility work than journals? I’d argue that they should, but clearly are not. But your point is understood. The FDA has flaws in their process which are also flaws for medical research in general. This particular study did a good job highlighting a very large flaw 😊
Do I understand this right? The FDA approval process is itself susceptible to the same statistical traps that research papers fall into? Do they do more reproducibility work than the journals do, because my recent work suggests as much as 45% of published works may deserve meaningful correction at best and often outright retraction.
Yes, it is a trap for research in general. Does the FDA do more reproducibility work than journals? I’d argue that they should, but clearly are not. But your point is understood. The FDA has flaws in their process which are also flaws for medical research in general. This particular study did a good job highlighting a very large flaw 😊