Reducing the probability of false positive research findings by pre-publication validation – Experience with a large multiple sclerosis database

BackgroundPublished false positive research findings are a major problem in the process of scientific discovery. There is a high rate of lack of replication of results in clinical research in general, multiple sclerosis research being no exception. Our aim was to develop and implement a policy that reduces the probability of publishing false positive research findings.We have assessed the utility to work with a pre-publication validation policy after several years of research in the context of a large multiple sclerosis database.MethodsThe large database of the Sylvia Lawry Centre for Multiple Sclerosis Research was split in two parts: one for hypothesis generation and a validation part for confirmation of selected results. We present case studies from 5 finalized projects that have used the validation policy and results from a simulation study.ResultsIn one project, the "relapse and disability" project as described in section II (example 3), findings could not be confirmed in the validation part of the database. The simulation study showed that the percentage of false positive findings can exceed 20% depending on variable selection.ConclusionWe conclude that the validation policy has prevented the publication of at least one research finding that could not be validated in an independent data set (and probably would have been a "true" false-positive finding) over the past three years, and has led to improved data analysis, statistical programming, and selection of hypotheses. The advantages outweigh the lost statistical power inherent in the process.

[1]  G. Ebers,et al.  Microsatellites and genome scans — A GAMES postscript , 2007, Journal of Neuroimmunology.

[2]  J. Baskerville,et al.  The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. 7. Progressive-relapsing and relapsing-progressive multiple sclerosis: a re-evaluation. , 1999, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[4]  J. Baskerville,et al.  The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. 5. The clinical features and natural history of primary progressive multiple sclerosis. , 1999, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[5]  Axel Wismüller,et al.  BMC Neurology BioMed Central , 2006 .

[6]  F. Fazekas,et al.  Predicting gadolinium enhancement status in MS patients eligible for randomized clinical trials , 2005, Neurology.

[7]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[8]  Philip J. McCarthy,et al.  The Use of Balanced Half-Sample Replication in Cross-Validation Studies , 1976 .

[9]  D. Lawlor,et al.  Those confounded vitamins: what can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence? , 2004, The Lancet.

[10]  Stephen W Lagakos,et al.  Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  C. Lederer,et al.  Disability as an outcome in MS clinical trials , 2008, Neurology.

[12]  M. Korenberg,et al.  Microarray Data Analysis , 2007, Methods in Molecular Biology.

[13]  Yongchao Ge Resampling-based Multiple Testing for Microarray Data Analysis , 2003 .

[14]  J A Frank,et al.  MRI T2 lesion burden in multiple sclerosis , 2006, Neurology.

[15]  S. le Cessie,et al.  Predictive value of statistical models. , 1990, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  J. C. van Houwelingen,et al.  Predictive value of statistical models , 1990 .

[17]  D. Kent,et al.  Subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  S. Delgado,et al.  Predictors of relapse rate in MS clinical trials , 2008 .

[19]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd Edition , 2001, Springer Series in Statistics.

[20]  John D. Storey,et al.  Statistical significance for genomewide studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  L. Kappos,et al.  Relapses and subsequent worsening of disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis , 2006, Neurology.

[22]  Subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  D G Altman,et al.  What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  John D. Storey,et al.  Statistical Significance for Genome-Wide Studies , 2003 .

[25]  Alastair Compston,et al.  McAlpine's Multiple Sclerosis , 2005 .

[26]  D. Allison,et al.  Microarray data analysis: from disarray to consolidation and consensus , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[27]  B Bass,et al.  The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study. I. Clinical course and disability. , 1989, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[28]  R. Fisher THE USE OF MULTIPLE MEASUREMENTS IN TAXONOMIC PROBLEMS , 1936 .

[29]  J. Brooks Why most published research findings are false: Ioannidis JP, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece , 2008 .

[30]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning , 2001 .

[31]  Jan P Vandenbroucke,et al.  When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? , 2004, The Lancet.