Institut des Maladies Neurodégénératives, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
PLoS One. 2011 Jan 31;6(1):e14618. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014618.
There is often a huge gap between neurobiological facts and firm conclusions stated by the media. Data misrepresentation in the conclusions and summaries of neuroscience articles might contribute to this gap.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Using the case of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we identified three types of misrepresentation. The first relies on prominent inconsistencies between results and claimed conclusions and was observed in two scientific reports dealing with ADHD. Only one out of the 61 media articles echoing both scientific reports adequately described the results and, thus questioned the claimed conclusion. The second type of misrepresentation consists in putting a firm conclusion in the summary while raw data that strongly limit the claim are only given in the results section. To quantify this misrepresentation we analyzed the summaries of all articles asserting that polymorphisms of the gene coding for the D4 dopaminergic receptor are associated with ADHD. Only 25 summaries out of 159 also mentioned that this association confers a small risk. This misrepresentation is also observed in most media articles reporting on ADHD and the D4 gene. The third misrepresentation consists in extrapolating basic and pre-clinical findings to new therapeutic prospects in inappropriate ways. Indeed, analysis of all ADHD-related studies in mice showed that 23% of the conclusions were overstated. The frequency of this overstatement was positively related with the impact factor of the journal.
CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Data misrepresentations are frequent in the scientific literature dealing with ADHD and may contribute to the appearance of misleading conclusions in the media. In synergy with citation distortions and publication biases they influence social representations and bias the scientific evidence in favor of the view that ADHD is primarily caused by biological factors. We discuss the social consequences and the causes of data misrepresentations and suggest a few corrective actions.
神经生物学事实与媒体所陈述的坚定结论之间往往存在巨大差距。神经科学文章结论和摘要中的数据误报可能导致了这种差距。
方法/主要发现:我们以注意力缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)为例,确定了三种类型的误报。第一种依赖于结果与声称的结论之间明显的不一致,在两个涉及 ADHD 的科学报告中观察到了这种情况。在 61 篇呼应这两个科学报告的媒体文章中,只有一篇充分描述了结果,从而对声称的结论提出了质疑。第二种类型的误报是在摘要中提出坚定的结论,而在结果部分只给出了强烈限制该结论的原始数据。为了量化这种误报,我们分析了所有声称多巴胺 D4 受体基因编码的多态性与 ADHD 相关的文章的摘要。在 159 篇文章中,只有 25 篇摘要也提到了这种相关性只带来了很小的风险。这种误报也出现在大多数报道 ADHD 和 D4 基因的媒体文章中。第三种误报是将基础和临床前的发现不适当地外推到新的治疗前景中。事实上,对所有与 ADHD 相关的小鼠研究进行分析后发现,23%的结论被夸大了。这种夸大的频率与期刊的影响因子呈正相关。
结论/意义:在处理 ADHD 的科学文献中,数据误报很常见,这可能导致媒体上出现误导性结论。与引用扭曲和出版偏见相结合,它们影响了社会认知,使科学证据偏向于 ADHD 主要是由生物因素引起的观点。我们讨论了数据误报的社会后果和原因,并提出了一些纠正措施。