"Biomarkers revealed as red herrings are still treated like smoking guns"

John Ioannidis was one of the authors. He's an interesting researcher in my opinion. He has a degree in mathematics. He often challenges the status quo.

 

Abstract

Here's the abstract - but the other article is easier to read

 

Thanks.

Reminds me of the "CFS = Depression" meme which is still going strong amongst doctors, despite the fact that the researchers like Wessely who had promoted it have long since abandoned it. (Isn't there some Wessely quote like: "Whatever's wrong with these patients, it's not depression.")

It's a pain.

 

Ah, John P. A. Ioannidis of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" fame.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124


"Comparison of Effect Sizes Associated With Biomarkers Reported in Highly Cited Individual Articles and in Subsequent Meta-analyses":
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/21/2200.short

The whole scenario of the relative risks being magnitudes of order in the highly cited papers (published in top journals), compared to the subsequent meta-analyses is a clear result of publication/citation biases.