Improving Validation Practices in “Omics” Research

“Omics” research poses acute challenges regarding how to enhance validation practices and eventually the utility of this rich information. Several strategies may be useful, including routine replication, public data and protocol availability, funding incentives, reproducibility rewards or penalties, and targeted repeatability checks.

[1]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Public Availability of Published Research Data in High-Impact Journals , 2011, PloS one.

[2]  Andrew D. Johnson,et al.  Temporal Trends in Results Availability from Genome-Wide Association Studies , 2011, PLoS genetics.

[3]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. , 2011, JAMA.

[4]  D. Ransohoff,et al.  Biomarker studies: a call for a comprehensive biomarker study registry , 2011, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[5]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  An empirical assessment of validation practices for molecular classifiers , 2011, Briefings Bioinform..

[6]  S. Sivapalaratnam,et al.  More outreach for young scientists , 2010, Nature.

[7]  K. Baggerly.  Disclose all data in publications. , 2010, Nature.

[8]  M. Girolami,et al.  Recommendations for Biomarker Identification and Qualification in Clinical Proteomics , 2010, Science Translational Medicine.

[9]  A. Boulesteix,et al.  Over-optimism in bioinformatics: an illustration , 2010, Bioinform..

[10]  D. Ransohoff.  Proteomics research to discover markers: what can we learn from Netflix? , 2010, Clinical chemistry.

[11]  K. Coombes,et al.  Deriving chemosensitivity from cell lines: Forensic bioinformatics and reproducible research in high-throughput biology , 2009, 1010.1092.

[12]  M. Mann.  Comparative analysis to guide quality improvements in proteomics , 2009, Nature Methods.

[13]  Robert E. Kearney,et al.  A HUPO test sample study reveals common problems in mass spectrometry-based proteomics , 2009, Nature Methods.

[14]  C. Ball,et al.  Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses , 2009, Nature Genetics.

[15]  L. V. van't Veer,et al.  Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  S. Paik,et al.  Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  P. Donnelly,et al.  Replicating genotype–phenotype associations , 2007, Nature.

[18]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[19]  A. Arak.  The Túngara Frog: A Study in Sexual Selection and Communication, Michael J. Ryan. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London (1985), xv, +230. Price £27.95 hardback, £12.75 paperback , 1986 .

[20]  P. Smith,et al.  The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex , 1871, Nature.

[21]  S. Teutsch,et al.  The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[22]  David R. Jones,et al.  A systematic review and evaluation of the use of tumour markers in paediatric oncology: Ewing's sarcoma and neuroblastoma. , 2003, Health technology assessment.