Elegance, silence and nonsense in the mutations literature for solid tumors

Scott E Kern, Jordan M. Winter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

A third of highly cited clinical studies are subsequently contradicted,1 and there are statistical reasons for why many published research findings may be false.2 The subjective impression of many experts in cancer genetics is that much of the tumor mutation literature may also be erroneous or deeply flawed. For example, there exist many reports of false somatic mutations attributable entirely to the choice of analytic method. This pattern of mis-reporting may divert the investment of limiting resources for cancer research into fundamentally flawed directions. We provide here a review of the basic theoretic principles and observed patterns within the literature of solid tumors and inherited tumor-susceptibility syndromes. These patterns provide support for a systematic approach to the critical analysis of the somatic mutation literature offered in the accompanying paper.3.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)349-359
Number of pages11
JournalCancer Biology and Therapy
Volume5
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 2006

Fingerprint

Nonsense Codon
Neoplasms
Mutation
Research

Keywords

  • Artifacts
  • Cancer
  • Germline
  • Mutations
  • Solid tumors
  • Somatic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Elegance, silence and nonsense in the mutations literature for solid tumors. / Kern, Scott E; Winter, Jordan M.

In: Cancer Biology and Therapy, Vol. 5, No. 4, 04.2006, p. 349-359.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6d996ed6c9604b6fad0d4025ab9095b4,
title = "Elegance, silence and nonsense in the mutations literature for solid tumors",
abstract = "A third of highly cited clinical studies are subsequently contradicted,1 and there are statistical reasons for why many published research findings may be false.2 The subjective impression of many experts in cancer genetics is that much of the tumor mutation literature may also be erroneous or deeply flawed. For example, there exist many reports of false somatic mutations attributable entirely to the choice of analytic method. This pattern of mis-reporting may divert the investment of limiting resources for cancer research into fundamentally flawed directions. We provide here a review of the basic theoretic principles and observed patterns within the literature of solid tumors and inherited tumor-susceptibility syndromes. These patterns provide support for a systematic approach to the critical analysis of the somatic mutation literature offered in the accompanying paper.3.",
keywords = "Artifacts, Cancer, Germline, Mutations, Solid tumors, Somatic",
author = "Kern, {Scott E} and Winter, {Jordan M.}",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "349--359",
journal = "Cancer Biology and Therapy",
issn = "1538-4047",
publisher = "Landes Bioscience",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Elegance, silence and nonsense in the mutations literature for solid tumors

AU - Kern, Scott E

AU - Winter, Jordan M.

PY - 2006/4

Y1 - 2006/4

N2 - A third of highly cited clinical studies are subsequently contradicted,1 and there are statistical reasons for why many published research findings may be false.2 The subjective impression of many experts in cancer genetics is that much of the tumor mutation literature may also be erroneous or deeply flawed. For example, there exist many reports of false somatic mutations attributable entirely to the choice of analytic method. This pattern of mis-reporting may divert the investment of limiting resources for cancer research into fundamentally flawed directions. We provide here a review of the basic theoretic principles and observed patterns within the literature of solid tumors and inherited tumor-susceptibility syndromes. These patterns provide support for a systematic approach to the critical analysis of the somatic mutation literature offered in the accompanying paper.3.

AB - A third of highly cited clinical studies are subsequently contradicted,1 and there are statistical reasons for why many published research findings may be false.2 The subjective impression of many experts in cancer genetics is that much of the tumor mutation literature may also be erroneous or deeply flawed. For example, there exist many reports of false somatic mutations attributable entirely to the choice of analytic method. This pattern of mis-reporting may divert the investment of limiting resources for cancer research into fundamentally flawed directions. We provide here a review of the basic theoretic principles and observed patterns within the literature of solid tumors and inherited tumor-susceptibility syndromes. These patterns provide support for a systematic approach to the critical analysis of the somatic mutation literature offered in the accompanying paper.3.

KW - Artifacts

KW - Cancer

KW - Germline

KW - Mutations

KW - Solid tumors

KW - Somatic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646406052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646406052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 16575206

AN - SCOPUS:33646406052

VL - 5

SP - 349

EP - 359

JO - Cancer Biology and Therapy

JF - Cancer Biology and Therapy

SN - 1538-4047

IS - 4

ER -