OnCo
ideasIdea

Paid independent statistical review for preclinical papers that inform trials

Clinical trials get expert statistical review; the laboratory studies that justify them usually do not. Paying statisticians to review these papers before they influence a trial would catch errors early.

Statistical errors in preclinical papers (pseudo-replication, inappropriate tests, no correction for multiple comparisons) are common and are rarely caught by biologist reviewers. Journals could not afford it; a funder-supported service that provides paid statistical review for preclinical papers cited in trial protocols or investigational new drug packages, with a published statistical report, would target the small fraction of papers that matter most for translation.

Hypothesis
Statistical review will identify errors changing the interpretation in at least 20% of translationally important preclinical papers, and trials informed by reviewed papers will have lower early futility rates.
Rationale
Statistical review is standard in clinical journals and reduces error; its absence in preclinical publishing is an economic rather than a scientific choice.
What would test it
Review 200 preclinical papers cited in registered trial protocols; publish the error rate and types; follow the trials.
Maturity
speculative
Who has to act
philanthropy
Cost to try
Medium ($1M to $50M)
Years to first evidence
2
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

4top

Pages like this

not linked directly; found by shared links