Medical students are using popular research tool to pump out misleading studies
74 points
9 hours ago
| 7 comments
| science.org
| HN
whizzter
3 hours ago
[-]
Researcher/academics pay/promotoins should be contingent on reviewing,challenging and reproducing papers rather than publishing quantity, because publishing cartels and AI has already degraded most research fields.
reply
pjc50
2 hours ago
[-]
Should be, but you've got to tell the funders that.
reply
ktallett
2 hours ago
[-]
Reproducibility in many scientific as areas has been made almost impossible. We have got to the stage where IP matters more than scientific rigour so methodology is purposely left out.
reply
functionmouse
30 minutes ago
[-]
so... empiricism is over?
reply
humanfromearth9
2 hours ago
[-]
No. You can't spend all your money on rehashing past results. Some, OK, all, not. In many fields, the money is needed for discovery.
reply
7734128
2 hours ago
[-]
Discovery is quite worthless if the discovery can't be trusted enough to continue building upon.
reply
fn-mote
7 hours ago
[-]
My assumption is the credibility of a non-PhD-holding medical student’s research is 0, just like (almost) any other inexperienced researcher.
reply
thomasfedb
5 hours ago
[-]
As a clinician-academic who published in The Lancet during medical school, I think this goes a bit far. Unfortunately student doctors are encouraged to publish whether or not they actually have an interest in research… but that shouldn’t discount the work of those who are genuinely engaged.

But certainly we should always approach the literature critically, including the author list, journal of publication and its peer-review practices, and the methods.

reply
tremon
1 hour ago
[-]
> student doctors are encouraged to publish whether or not they actually have an interest in research… but that shouldn’t discount the work of those who are genuinely engaged.

How do you propose the interested public make the distinction between genuine engagement and forced encouragement? Isn't it the task of journals to make that distinction before publishing? I don't think you can fault the public for dismissing everything out of hand when both academia and the journals are actively turning scientific publishing into a market for lemons.

reply
gbnwl
1 hour ago
[-]
As usual HN posters are hyper aware of other's credentials while ignoring that their BS in CS (if that) doesn't magically qualify them to assess everything in every domain.

"I'm a software engineer, I'm sure if I had the time to study Neuroscience, I'd figure out what all of these researchers failed to realize all these decades! I (alone) have the magic of critical and logical thinking"

reply
Avicebron
22 minutes ago
[-]
A lot of us here have masters, PhDs, have published in academia, worked in the hard sciences or different engineerinf disciplines.

But I agree, when youre on the internet no ones knows you're a dog.

reply
BrtByte
4 hours ago
[-]
I think this is the right distinction
reply
bflesch
4 hours ago
[-]
I was severely disillusioned about the quality of clinical studies.

Would you publish if the head honcho of your double-blind study insists to know what treatment a certain patient is receiving?

You have this discussion about research ethics and subsequent beratement once, and then you either mentally check out or go to another hospital.

reply
niekmaas
5 hours ago
[-]
Well, that is a statement..! As an MD PhD with over 60 (co-)publications including multiple in top 1% journals I can say for sure that this is untrue. Of course this may be different per topic and country, but there is perfect research being published by non-PhD scientists. In fact, the PI from a top-tier US university I collaborate with for over 10 years doesn't even have a PhD.
reply
KeplerBoy
5 hours ago
[-]
You can be a PI without having a PhD?
reply
internet_user
3 hours ago
[-]
Even Hassabis found time to do a PhD. This is extra strange.
reply
BrtByte
4 hours ago
[-]
A med student can absolutely contribute useful work, especially with good supervision. The issue is more that inexperienced authors plus publication pressure plus easy tooling is a bad combination
reply
sebmellen
6 hours ago
[-]
This is really far too broad a brush.

Do most medical students publish useless case studies trying to jockey for residency spots and signal hustle/devotion? No doubt!

But there are a good handful of medical students who are still (surprisingly) in it for the medicine and not the money. And that handful is exceedingly capable; no reason they can’t publish valuable work with the right collaborators and resources.

reply
myroon5
6 hours ago
[-]
> no reason they can’t publish valuable work with the right collaborators

Despite h-index claiming to balance quantity and quality, it obviously incentives quantity over quality (no single publication can increment h-index as much as churning out a few worthless publications that cite each other); med students overwhelmingly follow those incentives trying to secure better residencies

reply
mishellaneous
4 hours ago
[-]
in that case, it's a question of proportion. we cannot automatically conclude that a (supposed) "good handful" doing good research makes up for "most students" doing bad research.
reply
samuraijack
3 hours ago
[-]
LLVM was a masters thesis project (not medicine related but research by non PhDs should not be disregarded imo)
reply
philipallstar
3 hours ago
[-]
LLVM was a thing that demonstrated its value by working when you used it. And you can't judge a population (all non-PhD theses) by its tippety-top performers, particularly when there are poor incentives involved.
reply
mishellaneous
4 hours ago
[-]
a friend of a friend who did a stint in biomedical academia told me that the researchers in their field did not hold research coming from the medicine community in high regard
reply
boelboel
2 hours ago
[-]
Knew a professor statistics from a world renowned institution. He worked in nephrology for 10-20 years and would tell many stories about the worst practices he's seen and researchers pushed him to allow.

Medicine was among the worst if not the worst according to him. Didn't really want much to do with it anymore. Basically a case of subpar statistical knowledge and bad incentives.

reply
aardvark92
6 hours ago
[-]
I guess it depends on who the coauthors and PI are - some academic mentors can be overly trusting and ‘hands-off.’ A lone medical student’s self published paper shouldn’t be worth much though…
reply
elendilm
2 hours ago
[-]
What has PhD got to do with anything. Research is research regardless of who does it if using proper scientific method.

Such obvious common sense appears not obvious after all.

reply
bflesch
4 hours ago
[-]
In the end it is about personal integrity and idealism, no matter what the titles are.

Totally different if someone's self image is that of a researcher for benefit of humankind or if they pick the career because they want to drive a Porsche.

reply
NotGMan
5 hours ago
[-]
Since we have seen that 50%+ of findings even in medical and other natural sciences are not repruductible it's obvious that even PhD people are mostly incompetent.
reply
BrtByte
4 hours ago
[-]
Feels like the minimum standard should be sharing the exact query/design choices and being very explicit about what biases the analysis can and cannot address
reply
internet_user
3 hours ago
[-]
admissions and residency matching give a lot of weight to "research output", aka publications.

For residency, the two most important things are: 1) board scores. 2) research output.

It's not uncommon to see 40-50 publications for competitive residencies.

incentives, incentives, incentives.

reply
rimworld
3 hours ago
[-]
AI BS sourced from even more BS
reply
OutOfHere
8 hours ago
[-]
They're just generating observational hypotheses for future investigators to examine further and maybe test in a trial. It should be presented as an observational hypothesis.
reply
feverzsj
7 hours ago
[-]
90% biomedicine papers are bullshit. These students are just practicing bullshit.
reply
DarkNova6
5 hours ago
[-]
90% of statistics on the internet are made up anyway
reply
flexagoon
2 hours ago
[-]
"Don't believe random quotes on the internet"

- Albert Einstein

reply