***HUGE*MAJOR*PICKY*RESEARCH*SCIENTIST*POINT*** -- you wouldn't be expected to know this one, however it's something I *HAVE* to know because I'm
taking a graduate course in Quantitative Analysis and research design.
I see lots and lots of websites with "research" on them, and generally the more outrageous the claims, the worse the research. So this is a little
guide to "what research looks like."
1) Every paper will have an abstract. It will be Bloody Incomprehensible unless you just happen to know the technicalities of the field.
FIELD GUIDE TO THE RESEARCH ABSTRACT
+ Bloody incomprehensible language.
+ Lots of long, long words and chemical names
+ Bunches of people work on it (because it's time consuming. Really really time-consuming.)
+ Says things like "singleblind" or "doubleblind."
+ Published in a journal you can find in your local university library.
Letrozole is more effective neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than tamoxifen for ErbB-1- and/or ErbB-2-positive, estrogen receptor-positive primary breast
cancer: evidence from a phase III randomized trial.
Ellis MJ, Coop A, Singh B, Mauriac L, Llombert-Cussac A, Janicke F, Miller WR, Evans DB, Dugan M, Brady C, Quebe-Fehling E, Borgs M.
Duke University Breast Cancer Program, Duke University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. email@example.com
PURPOSE: Expression of ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 (epidermal growth factor receptor and HER2/neu) in breast cancer may cause tamoxifen resistance, but not all
studies concur. Additionally, the relationship between ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 expression and response to selective aromatase inhibitors is unknown. A
neoadjuvant study for primary breast cancer that randomized treatment between letrozole and tamoxifen provided a context within which these issues
could be addressed prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal patients with estrogen- and/or progesterone receptor-positive (ER+ and/or PgR+)
primary breast cancer ineligible for breast-conserving surgery were randomly assigned to 4 months of neoadjuvant letrozole 2.5 mg daily or tamoxifen
20 mg daily in a double-blinded study. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for ER and PgR was conducted on pretreatment biopsies and assessed by the Allred
score. ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 IHC were assessed by intensity and completeness of membranous staining according to published criteria. RESULTS: For study
biopsy-confirmed ER+ and/or PgR+ cases that received letrozole, 60% responded and 48% underwent successful breast-conserving surgery. The response to
tamoxifen was inferior (41%, P =.004), and fewer patients underwent breast conservation (36%, P =.036). Differences in response rates between
letrozole and tamoxifen were most marked for tumors that were positive for ErbB-1 and/or ErbB-2 and ER (88% v 21%, P =.0004). CONCLUSION: ER+,
ErbB-1+, and/or ErbB-2+ primary breast cancer responded well to letrozole, but responses to tamoxifen were infrequent. This suggests that ErbB-1 and
ErbB-2 signaling through ER is ligand-dependent and that the growth-promoting effects of these receptor tyrosine kinases on ER+ breast cancer can be
inhibited by potent estrogen deprivation therapy.
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Randomized Controlled Trial
Take a look at Rath's. It looks like it was written by a reporter.
FIELD GUIDE TO REAL RESEARCH PAPERS:
+ Bloody incomprehensible language.
+ Lots of long, long words and specialized names
+ It has a set of references that refer to other articles published in other popular journals.
This is what a real research paper (in a real journal) looks like:
(sorry, guys... that was the easiest to read one that I found)
And finally, here's an acceptable "grad student" level paper. This would be suitable for homework in a course. It is not suitble for publication
in the better journals:
Dr. Rath's paper doesn't even meet those standards. There's not much evidence that he really did present that paper to other doctors at the
conference. The language in the paper isn't acceptable for publication OR for presenting at an oncology conference.
Now, I'm not saying he's a liar. I am saying that there's no evidence that he's being truthful about other things. He does, however, have an
expensive lifestyle that requires people to throw a lot of money at him.
Speaking as a real researcher, I'd like to see some REAL proof of his clinical trials and not a faked paper that wouldn't make it in my QuantAnal