Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘science translational medicine’ Category

“Data had been manipulated:” Science Translational Medicine retracts paper

with one comment

Science Translational Medicine has retracted a paper by researchers based in Switzerland, after an investigation concluded two figures had been manipulated.

The investigation occurred at the University of Basel. It’s not clear what prompted it, but the paper has been discussed at length on PubPeer. After the investigation concluded two figure panels included manipulated data, the last author asked to retract the paper.

Here’s the notice:

Read the rest of this entry »

Widely used brain tumor cell line may not be what researchers thought it was

without comments

Bengt Westermark

Bengt Westermark

Nearly 50 years ago, researchers in Uppsala, Sweden used cells from a patient to establish a brain tumor cell line that has become widely used. But a new study suggests that the most common source of that cell line used by scientists today may not be derived from that original patient’s tumor, raising questions about the results obtained in hundreds of studies.

In a new paper out today in Science Translational Medicine, Bengt Westermark, of Uppsala University, and colleagues describe what they found when they performed a forensic DNA analysis comparing the widely used version of the cell line to the original. The findings are consistent with those of other analyses in which cell lines turn out not to be what researchers thought, a problem we’ve focused some attention on.

Here’s an email interview with Westermark about the findings and their implications: Read the rest of this entry »

What does “reproducibility” mean? New paper seeks to standardize the lexicon

with one comment

Science Translational MedicineWhat is the difference between “reproducible” and “replicable”? And how does each relate to results that are “generalizable” and “robust”?

Researchers are using these terms interchangeably, creating confusion over what exactly is needed to confirm a scientific result, argues a new paper published today in Science Translational Medicine.

Here’s how the US National Science Foundation (NSF) defines “reproducibility,” according to the authors: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Dalmeet Singh Chawla

June 1st, 2016 at 2:20 pm

Downstream effects: Comment on retracted narcolepsy paper retracted

without comments

stmcoverThe recent retraction of a paper in Science Translational Medicine reporting “one of the biggest things to happen” in narcolepsy research has claimed a bystander: A letter that commented on the no-longer-landmark article.

The authors of the letter are with GlaxoSmithKline’s vaccine division. Here’s the new notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Authors retract paper “confirming” that narcolepsy is an autoimmune disease

with 6 comments

stmA group of researchers at Stanford and elsewhere is retracting a 2013 paper that another scientist told Nature was “one of the biggest things to happen in the narcolepsy field for some time.”

The Science Translational Medicine paper caused a buzz because it claimed to show that narcolepsy was an autoimmune disease. Here’s the notice: Read the rest of this entry »