Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.

Bactericidal activity of selected antimicrobial agents against Bilophila wadsworthia and Bacteroides gracilis

Bactericidal assays of Bacteroides gracilis (six strains) and Bilophila wadsworthia (12 strains) in brucella broth with appropriate supplements were performed by the time-kill kinetic method. Antimicrobial agents tested were ampicillin/sulbactam (final concentrations, 16/8 micrograms/mL), ticarcillin/clavulanate (128/2 micrograms/mL), imipenem (8 micrograms/mL), cefoxitin (32 micrograms/mL), chloramphenicol (16 micrograms/mL), clindamycin (4 micrograms/mL), and metronidazole (16 micrograms/mL). Although all antimicrobial agents tested inhibited growth of all Bilophila strains during the first 24 hours, bactericidal activity was variable; only metronidazole was uniformly bactericidal. Most strains of Bilophila showed 1-2 log increases in growth at 6 hours with clindamycin and chloramphenicol. With chloramphenicol, some Bilophila strains tested showed regrowth starting at 30 hours. B. gracilis strains were generally more susceptible to all agents tested. Metronidazole, ticarcillin/clavulanate, chloramphenicol, and imipenem were most active. Several strains of B. gracilis were not killed by ampicillin/sulbactam, clindamycin, or cefoxitin. Activity was variable among strains and antimicrobial agents.

[The "Emmerich Arthritis Record", function and acceptance within the scope of an integrated treatment concept]

For a comprehensive model of rheumatoid arthritis treatment, we designed an arthritis manual for continuous treatment of chronic illness. One goal of introducing the manual to the patients was the improvement of communication between patient and different doctors and therapists. The first part includes of a doctor's documentation sheet and a patient calendar (6 months each) for daily self-documentation of drug compliance. The second part is a daily pain-rating scale. The 3-year evaluation of 655 patient manuals for 286 patients was analyzed to estimate the compliance in using the manual. Overall, 87% of diagnoses, 83% of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), 87% of non-steroidal anti-rheumatic drugs (NSAIDs) had been documented in the manual. Data indicates that the general practitioner and the rheumatologist accepted the manual form. In addition, 85% of the documented patients used the DMARDs, 74% used the daily pain score, and 43% the daily physiotherapy. Subgroup data (n = 130 RA patients) suggest additional results: 1) there was no difference in sociodemographic data between the patient manual user group and the non-user group; 2) the user group consisted of patients with higher disease activity (ARA-criteria), higher pain score, and negative mood pattern. Furthermore, the user group was more active in daily physiotherapy, ergotherapy, and balneotherapy.