Footprint of publication selection bias on meta-analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics

Publication selection bias undermines the systematic accumulation of evidence. To assess the extent of this problem, we survey over 68,000 meta-analyses containing over 700,000 effect size estimates from medicine (67,386/597,699), environmental sciences (199/12,707), psychology (605/23,563), and economics (327/91,421). Our results indicate that meta-analyses in economics are the most severely contaminated by publication selection bias, closely followed by meta-analyses in environmental sciences and psychology, whereas meta-analyses in medicine are contaminated the least. After adjusting for publication selection bias, the median probability of the presence of an effect decreased from 99.9% to 29.7% in economics, from 98.9% to 55.7% in psychology, from 99.8% to 70.7% in environmental sciences, and from 38.0% to 29.7% in medicine. The median absolute effect sizes (in terms of standardized mean differences) decreased from d = 0.20 to d = 0.07 in economics, from d = 0.37 to d = 0.26 in psychology, from d = 0.62 to d = 0.43 in environmental sciences, and from d = 0.24 to d = 0.13 in medicine

Footprint of publication selection bias on meta-analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics

Publication selection bias undermines the systematic accumulation of evidence. To assess the extent of this problem, we survey over 68,000 meta-analyses containing over 700,000 effect size estimates from medicine (67,386/597,699), environmental sciences (199/12,707), psychology (605/23,563), and economics (327/91,421). Our results indicate that meta-analyses in economics are the most severely contaminated by publication selection bias, closely followed by meta-analyses in environmental sciences and psychology, whereas meta-analyses in medicine are contaminated the least. After adjusting for publication selection bias, the median probability of the presence of an effect decreased from 99.9% to 29.7% in economics, from 98.9% to 55.7% in psychology, from 99.8% to 70.7% in environmental sciences, and from 38.0% to 29.7% in medicine. The median absolute effect sizes (in terms of standardized mean differences) decreased from d = 0.20 to d = 0.07 in economics, from d = 0.37 to d = 0.26 in psychology, from d = 0.62 to d = 0.43 in environmental sciences, and from d = 0.24 to d = 0.13 in medicine

Footprint of publication selection bias on meta-analyses in medicine, environmental sciences, psychology, and economics

Publication selection bias undermines the systematic accumulation of evidence. To assess the extent of this problem, we survey over 68,000 meta-analyses containing over 700,000 effect size estimates from medicine (67,386/597,699), environmental sciences (199/12,707), psychology (605/23,563), and economics (327/91,421). Our results indicate that meta-analyses in economics are the most severely contaminated by publication selection bias, closely followed by meta-analyses in environmental sciences and psychology, whereas meta-analyses in medicine are contaminated the least. After adjusting for publication selection bias, the median probability of the presence of an effect decreased from 99.9% to 29.7% in economics, from 98.9% to 55.7% in psychology, from 99.8% to 70.7% in environmental sciences, and from 38.0% to 29.7% in medicine. The median absolute effect sizes (in terms of standardized mean differences) decreased from d = 0.20 to d = 0.07 in economics, from d = 0.37 to d = 0.26 in psychology, from d = 0.62 to d = 0.43 in environmental sciences, and from d = 0.24 to d = 0.13 in medicine

Potential of Airborne LiDAR Derived Vegetation Structure for the Prediction of Animal Species Richness at Mount Kilimanjaro

The monitoring of species and functional diversity is of increasing relevance for the development of strategies for the conservation and management of biodiversity. Therefore, reliable estimates of the performance of monitoring techniques across taxa become important. Using a unique dataset, this study investigates the potential of airborne LiDAR-derived variables characterizing vegetation structure as predictors for animal species richness at the southern slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro. To disentangle the structural LiDAR information from co-factors related to elevational vegetation zones, LiDAR-based models were compared to the predictive power of elevation models. 17 taxa and 4 feeding guilds were modeled and the standardized study design allowed for a comparison across the assemblages. Results show that most taxa (14) and feeding guilds (3) can be predicted best by elevation with normalized RMSE values but only for three of those taxa and two of those feeding guilds the difference to other models is significant. Generally, modeling performances between different models vary only slightly for each assemblage. For the remaining, structural information at most showed little additional contribution to the performance. In summary, LiDAR observations can be used for animal species prediction. However, the effort and cost of aerial surveys are not always in proportion with the prediction quality, especially when the species distribution follows zonal patterns, and elevation information yields similar results

Dataset for the paper "SABCEMM - A Simulator for Agent Based Computational Economic Market Models"

This is the corresponding dataset to the publication "SABCEMM - A Simulator for Agent-Based Computational Economic Market Models" currently available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01811 and submitted to the journal Computational Economics (https://link.springer.com/journal/10614).To enable other researchers to reproduce our results the code of our simulator is available at https://github.com/SABCEMM/SABCEMM. Further we publish this dataset to facilitate an open discussion about our findings.In the following we will briefly explain the data format and how the files relate to our publication

Dataset for Simulation of Stylized Facts in Agent-Based Computational Economic Market Models

This is the corresponding dataset to the publication "Simulation of Stylized Facts in Agent-Based Computational Economic Market Models" (see related paper below). To enable other researchers to reproduce our results the code of our simulator is available at https://github.com/SABCEMM/SABCEMM. Further we publish this dataset to facilitate an open discussion about our findings.In the dataset description we briefly explain the data format and how the files relate to our publication

Unrestricted weighted least squares represent medical research better than random effects in 67,308 Cochrane meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how well meta-analysis mean estimators represent reported medical research and establish which meta-analysis method is better using widely accepted model selection measures: Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We compiled 67,308 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) published between 1997 and 2020, collectively encompassing nearly 600,000 medical findings. We compared unrestricted weighted least squares (UWLS) vs. random effects (RE); fixed effect was also secondarily considered. RESULTS: The probability that a randomly selected systematic review from the CDSR would favor UWLS over RE is 79.4% (95% confidence interval [CI95%]: 79.1; 79.7). The odds ratio that a Cochrane systematic review would substantially favor UWLS over RE is 9.33 (CI95%: 8.94; 9.73) using the conventional criterion that a difference in AIC (or BIC) of two or larger represents a 'substantial' improvement. UWLS's advantage over RE is most prominent in the presence of low heterogeneity. However, UWLS also has a notable advantage in high heterogeneity research, across different sizes of meta-analyses and types of outcomes. CONCLUSION: UWLS frequently dominates RE in medical research, often substantially. Thus, the UWLS should be reported routinely in the meta-analysis of clinical trials