SwePub
Tyck till om SwePub Sök här!
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Miller Jack) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Miller Jack)

  • Resultat 1-10 av 27
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  •  
2.
  • Aad, G., et al. (författare)
  • 2012
  • swepub:Mat__t (refereegranskat)
  •  
3.
  • Aad, G., et al. (författare)
  • 2011
  • swepub:Mat__t (refereegranskat)
  •  
4.
  • 2019
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
  •  
5.
  •  
6.
  •  
7.
  •  
8.
  • Cossarizza, A., et al. (författare)
  • Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (second edition)
  • 2019
  • Ingår i: European Journal of Immunology. - : Wiley. - 0014-2980 .- 1521-4141. ; 49:10, s. 1457-1973
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • These guidelines are a consensus work of a considerable number of members of the immunology and flow cytometry community. They provide the theory and key practical aspects of flow cytometry enabling immunologists to avoid the common errors that often undermine immunological data. Notably, there are comprehensive sections of all major immune cell types with helpful Tables detailing phenotypes in murine and human cells. The latest flow cytometry techniques and applications are also described, featuring examples of the data that can be generated and, importantly, how the data can be analysed. Furthermore, there are sections detailing tips, tricks and pitfalls to avoid, all written and peer-reviewed by leading experts in the field, making this an essential research companion.
  •  
9.
  • Ebersole, Charles R., et al. (författare)
  • Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability
  • 2020
  • Ingår i: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : Sage. - 2515-2467 .- 2515-2459. ; 3:3, s. 309-331
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3-9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276-3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Delta r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00-.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19-.50).
  •  
10.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-10 av 27

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy