---
title: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:18:11.339554+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is a 2005 essay written by John Ioannidis, a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, and published in PLOS Medicine. It is considered foundational to the field of metascience.
In the paper, Ioannidis argued that a large number, if not the majority, of published medical research papers contain results that cannot be replicated. In simple terms, the essay states that scientists use hypothesis testing to determine whether scientific discoveries are significant. Statistical significance is formalized in terms of probability, with its p-value measure being reported in the scientific literature as a screening mechanism. Ioannidis posited assumptions about the way people perform and report these tests; then he constructed a statistical model which indicates that most published findings are likely false positive results.
While the general arguments in the paper recommending reforms in scientific research methodology were well-received, Ionnidis received criticism for the validity of his model and his claim that the majority of scientific findings are false. Responses to the paper suggest lower false positive and false negative rates than what Ioannidis puts forth.

== Argument ==
Suppose that in a given scientific field there is a known baseline probability that a result is true, denoted by 
  
    
      
        
          P
        
        (
        
          True
        
        )
      
    
    {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\text{True}})}
  
. When a study is conducted, the probability that a positive result is obtained is 
  
    
      
        
          P
        
        (
        +
        )
      
    
    {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} (+)}
  
. Given these two factors, we want to compute the conditional probability 
  
    
      
        
          P
        
        (
        
          True
        
        ∣
        +
        )
      
    
    {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\text{True}}\mid +)}
  
, which is known as the positive predictive value (PPV). Bayes' theorem allows us to compute the PPV as:
  
    
      
        
          P
        
        (
        
          True
        
        ∣
        +
        )
        =
        
          
            
              (
              1
              −
              β
              )
              
                P
              
              (
              
                True
              
              )
            
            
              (
              1
              −
              β
              )
              
                P
              
              (
              
                True
              
              )
              +
              α
              
                [
                
                  1
                  −
                  
                    P
                  
                  (
                  
                    True
                  
                  )
                
                ]
              
            
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\text{True}}\mid +)={(1-\beta )\mathbb {P} ({\text{True}}) \over {(1-\beta )\mathbb {P} ({\text{True}})+\alpha \left[1-\mathbb {P} ({\text{True}})\right]}}}
  
where 
  
    
      
        α
      
    
    {\displaystyle \alpha }
  
 is the type I error rate (false positives) and 
  
    
      
        β
      
    
    {\displaystyle \beta }
  
 is the type II error rate (false negatives); the statistical power is 
  
    
      
        1
        −
        β
      
    
    {\displaystyle 1-\beta }
  
. It is customary in most scientific research to desire 
  
    
      
        α
        =
        0.05
      
    
    {\displaystyle \alpha =0.05}
  
 and 
  
    
      
        β
        =
        0.2
      
    
    {\displaystyle \beta =0.2}
  
. If we assume 
  
    
      
        
          P
        
        (
        
          True
        
        )
        =
        0.1
      
    
    {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\text{True}})=0.1}
  
 for a given scientific field, then we may compute the PPV for different values of 
  
    
      
        α
      
    
    {\displaystyle \alpha }
  
 and 
  
    
      
        β
      
    
    {\displaystyle \beta }
  
:

However, the simple formula for PPV derived from Bayes' theorem does not account for bias in study design or reporting. Some published findings would not have been presented as research findings if not for researcher bias. Let 
  
    
      
        u
        ∈
        [
        0
        ,
        1
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\in [0,1]}
  
 be the probability that an analysis was only published due to researcher bias. Then the PPV is given by the more general expression:
  
    
      
        
          P
        
        (
        
          True
        
        ∣
        +
        )
        =
        
          
            
              
                [
                
                  1
                  −
                  (
                  1
                  −
                  u
                  )
                  β
                
                ]
              
              
                P
              
              (
              
                True
              
              )
            
            
              
                [
                
                  1
                  −
                  (
                  1
                  −
                  u
                  )
                  β
                
                ]
              
              
                P
              
              (
              
                True
              
              )
              +
              
                [
                
                  (
                  1
                  −
                  u
                  )
                  α
                  +
                  u
                
                ]
              
              
                [
                
                  1
                  −
                  
                    P
                  
                  (
                  
                    True
                  
                  )
                
                ]
              
            
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\text{True}}\mid +)={\left[1-(1-u)\beta \right]\mathbb {P} ({\text{True}}) \over {\left[1-(1-u)\beta \right]\mathbb {P} ({\text{True}})+\left[(1-u)\alpha +u\right]\left[1-\mathbb {P} ({\text{True}})\right]}}}
  
The introduction of bias will tend to depress the PPV; in the extreme case when the bias of a study is maximized, 
  
    
      
        
          P
        
        (
        
          True
        
        ∣
        +
        )
        =
        
          P
        
        (
        
          True
        
        )
      
    
    {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\text{True}}\mid +)=\mathbb {P} ({\text{True}})}
  
. Even if a study meets the benchmark requirements for 
  
    
      
        α
      
    
    {\displaystyle \alpha }
  
 and 
  
    
      
        β
      
    
    {\displaystyle \beta }
  
, and is free of bias, there is still a 36% probability that a paper reporting a positive result will be incorrect; if the base probability of a true result is lower, then this will push the PPV lower too. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the average statistical power of a study in many scientific fields is well below the benchmark level of 0.8.
Given the realities of bias, low statistical power, and a small number of true hypotheses, Ioannidis concludes that the majority of studies in a variety of scientific fields are likely to report results that are false.

=== Corollaries ===
In addition to the main result, Ioannidis lists six corollaries for factors that can influence the reliability of published research.
Research findings in a scientific field are less likely to be true, 

the smaller the studies conducted.
the smaller the effect sizes.
the greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships.
the greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes.
the greater the financial and other interests and prejudices.
the hotter the scientific field (with more scientific teams involved).
Ioannidis has added to this work by contributing to a meta-epidemiological study which found that only 1 in 20 interventions tested in Cochrane Reviews have benefits that are supported by high-quality evidence. He also contributed to research suggesting that the quality of this evidence does not seem to improve over time.