Possible irrationality in biomedical research: small-N human studies get derided as “too small, preliminary” even if the effect is clear and consistent enough to have a low p-value; animal studies often use tiny numbers of animals or don’t even list the number.
-
Show this thread
-
With my cynical hat on, this is exactly how you’d want things to be set up if you were a pharma exec championing one of the drug candidates in your pipeline.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Low standards for what counts as “good enough data to pursue further” (so you can be sure your favorite candidate will clear it) but overly high standards for how large a clinical trial has to be (so smaller competitors can’t afford to run them.)
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread
I don’t know enough about life inside a top pharma company to actually claim anybody thinks this way, of course. It’s a product of a cynical imagination.
7:15 AM - 9 Dec 2019
0 replies
0 retweets
3 likes
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.