You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Journal of Unpublished Results – A case for the validity of scientific research (Part II)
Hi there,
another researcher is tolking here, I'm from Italy but now I'm working in Spain on Bladder cancer samples.
I'm performing GES ( gene expression sequencing) serching for a gene signature that will be usefull in diagnosis and prognosis of some bladder cancer patients.
I would like to thank you for your article, but expecially for what you did. The thing that the scientific results should be reproducible often is taken for granted, but find a researcher who spend his time to really reproduce it, is uncommon.
My compliment to your work and to you article.
Thanks for reading and appreciating the article! Yes, it is great when you can reproduce certain findings. It gets more difficult if you cannot, because you have to exclude that you did not do any conceptual, methodological or logical mistakes first, before really questioning previous research.
So you are working with one of the big data tools :-) Are there already bladder cancer subtypes defined based on gene expression signatures or are you at the frontiers of this approach?
there are alredy subtypes, there are only four important studies and in 2 of these they "mixed up" invasive and non invasive tumors to search the subtypes. My research will consider only the invasive tumors, and we are going to search for genes with a relative usefullness also for an immune therapy
I remember that our body in the dissection course had its bladder completely filled out by a giant tumor, so the doctors had to put a catheter into the ureter for urine to flow out. That was awful...
I wish you success in finding something distinguishing!
I reallly love the " on the field" part too!!