<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Empirical estimates suggest most published medical research is true · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1301.3718/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1301.3718/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Empirical estimates suggest most published medical research is true — mentioned by SideQuark</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41642265</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1301.3718:41642265</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2024 23:59:23 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This paper, almost 20 years old, has plenty of follow-up work showing the claims in this original paper aren’t true. One simple angle is Ioannidis simply makes up some parameters to show things could be bad. Later empirical work measuring those parameters found Ioannidis off by orders of magnitude. One example https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3718 There’s ample other published papers showing other holes in the claims. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1568101778041879927... Google scholar papers citing this&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1301.3718/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>stat.AP</category></item></channel></rss>
