Lorenzo Lolli

Weekend reads: ‘The fall of a prolific science journal’; Clinical trials by ‘super-retractors’; ‘How to Study Things That May Not Exist’ Giving Tuesday was this week, and, like many organizations, we asked for your support. The work we do is funded in part by your donations. If you value our work in rooting out scientific fraud and …

Weekend reads: ‘The fall of a prolific science journal’; Clinical trials by ‘super-retractors’; ‘How to Study Things That May Not Exist’

OMG - it’s like the old days of Hindawi AI gobbledegook sandwiches
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

More nonsense from Scientific Reports
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
This article may be many things, but scientific it ain’t

this is one of my favourite observations about sample size calculations. (afaik first articulated by Miettinen in 1985)

For some research studies the optimal sample size should be estimated at 0

"Sports and exercise sciences journals under scrutiny for predatory publishing" | Lorenzo Lolli posted on the topic | LinkedIn “As the investigation proceeded, it became clear that 𝙖 𝙗𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠 of about 35 authors 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 over a very large number of journals and published papers, a frac...

All very important stuff so actual and relevant to a field as the sports and exercise sciences having the potential to reshape the canons of sleuthing given the consolidated practices and quite solid “𝙥𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙨 𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙨” plaguing the field in recent years

www.linkedin.com/posts/lorenz...

“The worrying thing is that most of the published literature is 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 and one wonders 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗳 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.” - spot on @deevybee.bsky.social.

The potential and limits of scrutiny in medical research In a recent lecture Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, talked about how setbacks driven by misinformation can be temporary and how evidence and data can rebuild confidence. He was speaking...

“..Our capacity to manage potential research misconduct is being overwhelmed. Automated pre-submission checks help but are far from infallible, which leaves responsible journals considering how best to bolster peer review, both before and after publication, and to force greater transparency.”

The potential and limits of scrutiny in medical research In a recent lecture Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, talked about how setbacks driven by misinformation can be temporary and how evidence and data can rebuild confidence. He was speaking...

“Like misinformation, misconduct is nothing new. But it’s become easier for authors to execute it with the aid of artificial intelligence and “𝙥𝙖𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙨,” while being harder for publishers to contend with, given the volume of potential misconduct cases…” @bmj.com

The potential and limits of scrutiny in medical research In a recent lecture Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, talked about how setbacks driven by misinformation can be temporary and how evidence and data can rebuild confidence. He was speaking...

Anyone that happens to have a fake dataset lying around to be accidentally submitted should probably not be trusted to then provide you with the real one. HT @deevybee.bsky.social

www.bmj.com/content/391/...

We did a thing. 😬

Viewpoints on Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect and Precision Medicine – Statistical Thinking This article provides my reflections after the PCORI/PACE Evidence and the Individual Patient meeting on 2018-05-31. The discussion includes a high-level view of heterogeneity of treatment effect in o...

Important considerations by @f2harrell.bsky.social in the Evidence for 𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗼geneity of Treatment Effects section in 𝙑𝙞𝙚𝙬𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙃𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙤𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙏𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙀𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙈𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙚

Viewpoints on Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect and Precision Medicine – Statistical Thinking This article provides my reflections after the PCORI/PACE Evidence and the Individual Patient meeting on 2018-05-31. The discussion includes a high-level view of heterogeneity of treatment effect in o...

…𝐈𝐟 𝐇𝐓𝐄 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬, 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗬 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀.” @f2harrell.bsky.social

Viewpoints on Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect and Precision Medicine – Statistical Thinking This article provides my reflections after the PCORI/PACE Evidence and the Individual Patient meeting on 2018-05-31. The discussion includes a high-level view of heterogeneity of treatment effect in o...

“For continuous outcome variables Y where the variance of measurements can be disconnected from the mean, 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑯𝑻𝑬 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒀 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒍 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑….

You categorised patients as responders or non responders by dichotomising a change from baseline?
You triple criminal!

Use of randomised trials to decide when to monitor response to new treatment - PubMed Is monitoring initial response to treatment always helpful in clinical management of patients? <b>Bell and colleagues</b> have developed a framework for deciding whether surrogate outcomes should be used to monitor initial response to treatment in chronic disease.

“𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒆𝒃𝒐 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒑𝒔 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗥 (𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁).”

Bell, K.J., Irwig, L., Craig, J.C., & Macaskill, P. (𝟮𝟬𝟬𝟴). British Medical Journal, 336(7640), 361–365.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18276713/

Review mill in Italy targeting ob-gyn journals, researchers allege Examples of “boilerplate” text used in the suspect reviews.M.A. Oviedo-Garcia et al/medRxiv 2025 A network of peer reviewers in Italy is targeting medical journals, threatening “both the scientific…

A network of peer reviewers in Italy is targeting medical journals, threatening “both the scientific record and patient safety,” a team of researchers including @deevybee.bsky.social report.

This is an excellent point that generalizes.
Researchers often defend suboptimal practices by referring to future studies with better designs.

But: Why would anybody run those studies when you can just throw a bunch of variables into a regression and make sweeping "preliminary" claims?

🚨LEAD FEATURE ARTICLE🚨 November 2025✨

We are very excited to announce our lead feature article for the November 2025 by Lolli et al titled ‘Understanding Treatment Response Heterogeneity Using Crossover Randomized Controlled Trials: A Primer for Exercise and Nutrition Scientists’.

Q.E.D.

Guidelines for Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews in Urology Our guideline comprises points addressing the conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in urology. Application of the guideline would lead to a more considered interpretation...

This is big! Worked with great statisticians on guidelines for meta-analysis & systematic review. We discuss rationales for systematic review, evaluation & interpretation of heterogeneity, & common errors in network meta-analysis, funnel plots etc. www.europeanurology.com/article/S030...

✨ NOVEMBER 2025 ISSUE LINE-UP✨

How are we already on the last issue of 2025?! This year has flown by but lucky for you, the IJSNEM content keeps on delivering. Stay tuned for papers to feature 🔔

Reviewing trial applications and so many are proposing to use mixed effects models with random effects for sites due to "clustering" despite 1) being individually-randomized, and 2) only having a small handful of sites. What is going on!?

“When faced with claims of innovation, some in their caution make nuanced assessments, whereas others in their enthusiasm make newanced endorsements.”Saying of Confuseus

We didn't randomize, and there was no allocation concealment or blinding, and we can't really be sure what intervention they got or how the outcomes were measured, but we emulated a trial by drawing a DAG.

They who are tempted by large language muddles should consider using nopilot.” Sayings of Confuseus

It was a rewarding labour of love to work on this paper with a fantastic team of authors, “Understanding Treatment Response Heterogeneity Using Crossover Randomized Controlled Trials: A Primer for Exercise and Nutrition Scientists”. @hk-ijsnem.bsky.social journals.humankinetics.com/view/journal...

I decided to make the introductory part in three segments: (1) logic (just the basics obviously) (2) epistemology (Vienna circle, K-Pop, Kuhn, Lakatos) and (3) what actually happens in practice (the “recipes for science” angle).>

On the defense of "change from baseline" even in randomized trials - can anyone question points in this article? Many times I read a strong criticism on the change-from-baseline (adjusted for baseline or not) both in randomized and non-randomized. Several people advised "don't even think of reporting the

Good discussion here about what’s wrong with computing change from baseline in a parallel group randomized clinical trial. We need to abandon this practice. stats.stackexchange.com/questions/57... #Statistics #StatsSky

1/6. At present, I am thinking a lot about additive vs multiplicative treatment/intervention effects on tests of athletic performance, or athletic performance itself. I favour exploration rather than blanket assumptions.......