Association between medical academic genealogy and publication outcome

impact of unconscious bias on scientific objectivity

Brian R. Hirshman, Ali A. Alattar, Sanjay Dhawan, Kathleen M. Carley, Clark C Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Our previous studies suggest that the training history of an investigator, termed “medical academic genealogy”, influences the outcomes of that investigator’s research. Here, we use meta-analysis and quantitative statistical modeling to determine whether such effects contribute to systematic bias in published conclusions. Methods: A total of 108 articles were identified through a comprehensive search of the high-grade glioma (HGG) surgical resection literature. Analysis was performed on the 70 articles with sufficient data for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates were generated for key academic genealogies. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine whether the effects attributed to genealogy alone can arise due to chance alone. Results: Meta-analysis of the HGG literature without consideration for academic medical genealogy revealed that gross total resection (GTR) was associated with a significant decrease in the odds ratio (OR) for the hazard of death after surgery for both anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) and glioblastoma (AA: log [OR] = − 0.04, 95% CI [− 0.07 to − 0.01]; glioblastoma log [OR] = − 0.36, 95% CI [− 0.44 to − 0.29]). For the glioblastoma literature, meta-analysis of articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly radiation oncologists revealed no reduction in the hazard of death after GTR [log [OR] = − 0.16, 95% CI [− 0.41 to 0.09]. In contrast, meta-analysis of published articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly neurosurgeons revealed that GTR was associated with a significant reduction in the hazard of death [log [OR] = − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.40 to 0.18]. Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the observed discrepancy between the articles contributed by the members of these two genealogies was unlikely to arise by chance alone (p < 0.006). Conclusions: Meta-analysis of articles contributed by authors belonging to the different medical academic genealogies yielded distinct and contradictory pooled point-estimates, suggesting that genealogy contributes to systematic bias in the published literature.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)205-211
Number of pages7
JournalActa Neurochirurgica
Volume161
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 13 2019

Fingerprint

Genealogy and Heraldry
Publications
Meta-Analysis
Odds Ratio
Glioblastoma
Astrocytoma
Glioma
Research Personnel
History
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Keywords

  • Brain tumor
  • Medical academic genealogy
  • Meta-analysis
  • Scientific objectivity

Cite this

Association between medical academic genealogy and publication outcome : impact of unconscious bias on scientific objectivity. / Hirshman, Brian R.; Alattar, Ali A.; Dhawan, Sanjay; Carley, Kathleen M.; Chen, Clark C.

In: Acta Neurochirurgica, Vol. 161, No. 2, 13.02.2019, p. 205-211.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hirshman, Brian R. ; Alattar, Ali A. ; Dhawan, Sanjay ; Carley, Kathleen M. ; Chen, Clark C. / Association between medical academic genealogy and publication outcome : impact of unconscious bias on scientific objectivity. In: Acta Neurochirurgica. 2019 ; Vol. 161, No. 2. pp. 205-211.
@article{e2d182da0f2c47c8b4e1e52b283429f2,
title = "Association between medical academic genealogy and publication outcome: impact of unconscious bias on scientific objectivity",
abstract = "Background: Our previous studies suggest that the training history of an investigator, termed “medical academic genealogy”, influences the outcomes of that investigator’s research. Here, we use meta-analysis and quantitative statistical modeling to determine whether such effects contribute to systematic bias in published conclusions. Methods: A total of 108 articles were identified through a comprehensive search of the high-grade glioma (HGG) surgical resection literature. Analysis was performed on the 70 articles with sufficient data for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates were generated for key academic genealogies. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine whether the effects attributed to genealogy alone can arise due to chance alone. Results: Meta-analysis of the HGG literature without consideration for academic medical genealogy revealed that gross total resection (GTR) was associated with a significant decrease in the odds ratio (OR) for the hazard of death after surgery for both anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) and glioblastoma (AA: log [OR] = − 0.04, 95{\%} CI [− 0.07 to − 0.01]; glioblastoma log [OR] = − 0.36, 95{\%} CI [− 0.44 to − 0.29]). For the glioblastoma literature, meta-analysis of articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly radiation oncologists revealed no reduction in the hazard of death after GTR [log [OR] = − 0.16, 95{\%} CI [− 0.41 to 0.09]. In contrast, meta-analysis of published articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly neurosurgeons revealed that GTR was associated with a significant reduction in the hazard of death [log [OR] = − 0.29, 95{\%} CI [− 0.40 to 0.18]. Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the observed discrepancy between the articles contributed by the members of these two genealogies was unlikely to arise by chance alone (p < 0.006). Conclusions: Meta-analysis of articles contributed by authors belonging to the different medical academic genealogies yielded distinct and contradictory pooled point-estimates, suggesting that genealogy contributes to systematic bias in the published literature.",
keywords = "Brain tumor, Medical academic genealogy, Meta-analysis, Scientific objectivity",
author = "Hirshman, {Brian R.} and Alattar, {Ali A.} and Sanjay Dhawan and Carley, {Kathleen M.} and Chen, {Clark C}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1007/s00701-019-03804-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "161",
pages = "205--211",
journal = "Acta Neurochirurgica",
issn = "0001-6268",
publisher = "Springer Wien",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Association between medical academic genealogy and publication outcome

T2 - impact of unconscious bias on scientific objectivity

AU - Hirshman, Brian R.

AU - Alattar, Ali A.

AU - Dhawan, Sanjay

AU - Carley, Kathleen M.

AU - Chen, Clark C

PY - 2019/2/13

Y1 - 2019/2/13

N2 - Background: Our previous studies suggest that the training history of an investigator, termed “medical academic genealogy”, influences the outcomes of that investigator’s research. Here, we use meta-analysis and quantitative statistical modeling to determine whether such effects contribute to systematic bias in published conclusions. Methods: A total of 108 articles were identified through a comprehensive search of the high-grade glioma (HGG) surgical resection literature. Analysis was performed on the 70 articles with sufficient data for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates were generated for key academic genealogies. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine whether the effects attributed to genealogy alone can arise due to chance alone. Results: Meta-analysis of the HGG literature without consideration for academic medical genealogy revealed that gross total resection (GTR) was associated with a significant decrease in the odds ratio (OR) for the hazard of death after surgery for both anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) and glioblastoma (AA: log [OR] = − 0.04, 95% CI [− 0.07 to − 0.01]; glioblastoma log [OR] = − 0.36, 95% CI [− 0.44 to − 0.29]). For the glioblastoma literature, meta-analysis of articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly radiation oncologists revealed no reduction in the hazard of death after GTR [log [OR] = − 0.16, 95% CI [− 0.41 to 0.09]. In contrast, meta-analysis of published articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly neurosurgeons revealed that GTR was associated with a significant reduction in the hazard of death [log [OR] = − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.40 to 0.18]. Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the observed discrepancy between the articles contributed by the members of these two genealogies was unlikely to arise by chance alone (p < 0.006). Conclusions: Meta-analysis of articles contributed by authors belonging to the different medical academic genealogies yielded distinct and contradictory pooled point-estimates, suggesting that genealogy contributes to systematic bias in the published literature.

AB - Background: Our previous studies suggest that the training history of an investigator, termed “medical academic genealogy”, influences the outcomes of that investigator’s research. Here, we use meta-analysis and quantitative statistical modeling to determine whether such effects contribute to systematic bias in published conclusions. Methods: A total of 108 articles were identified through a comprehensive search of the high-grade glioma (HGG) surgical resection literature. Analysis was performed on the 70 articles with sufficient data for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates were generated for key academic genealogies. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine whether the effects attributed to genealogy alone can arise due to chance alone. Results: Meta-analysis of the HGG literature without consideration for academic medical genealogy revealed that gross total resection (GTR) was associated with a significant decrease in the odds ratio (OR) for the hazard of death after surgery for both anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) and glioblastoma (AA: log [OR] = − 0.04, 95% CI [− 0.07 to − 0.01]; glioblastoma log [OR] = − 0.36, 95% CI [− 0.44 to − 0.29]). For the glioblastoma literature, meta-analysis of articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly radiation oncologists revealed no reduction in the hazard of death after GTR [log [OR] = − 0.16, 95% CI [− 0.41 to 0.09]. In contrast, meta-analysis of published articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly neurosurgeons revealed that GTR was associated with a significant reduction in the hazard of death [log [OR] = − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.40 to 0.18]. Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the observed discrepancy between the articles contributed by the members of these two genealogies was unlikely to arise by chance alone (p < 0.006). Conclusions: Meta-analysis of articles contributed by authors belonging to the different medical academic genealogies yielded distinct and contradictory pooled point-estimates, suggesting that genealogy contributes to systematic bias in the published literature.

KW - Brain tumor

KW - Medical academic genealogy

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Scientific objectivity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060155358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060155358&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00701-019-03804-9

DO - 10.1007/s00701-019-03804-9

M3 - Article

VL - 161

SP - 205

EP - 211

JO - Acta Neurochirurgica

JF - Acta Neurochirurgica

SN - 0001-6268

IS - 2

ER -