Thread. This shows: a) how much work it is to error-check scientific work b) how incredibly easy it is for researchers to prove they are genuinehttps://twitter.com/K_Sheldrick/status/1422411005955493894 …
-
-
I guess one could transform real data from a different trial and it would pass these tests, though? We're always going to rely on good faith and independent replication.
-
That's why clinical study monitors and auditors check the actual raw data for validity. On site. The agreements with the investigators and data privacy statements should allow this. But this option is not open to peer reviewers.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Then I recommend this book. Access to raw data is the exception, not the rule. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01911- …
-
Agree with your. But, by the way the link doesn't work...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
What's your thinking on GDPR? Pseudonimized data rarely remains as such if enough variables are included. Main reason we don't share datasets
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.