This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Our “ 1. Uninterpretable results, stemming from inadequately designed experiments, flawed data Research Topic, or incorrect analysis. 2. Solid negative results, derived from robustly designed, unbiased experiments with accurate analysis.
Uninterpretable results do not warrant publication, but solid results, regardless of their nature, should be published (
This hesitancy is often due to the perceived difficulty in distinguishing a true negative result from an uninterpretable one. Unknown confounding factors could compromise an apparently solid negative result, leading to potential misinterpretation.
This reluctance to publish solid negative results, while understandable, contributes to a “positive publication bias” ( • Incomplete scientific knowledge: only publishing positive results creates a skewed understanding of the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions. • Wasteful use of resources: when negative results remain unpublished, the scientific community may repeat unsuccessful studies, wasting time, funding, and other resources. • Patient safety and ethical concerns: concealing negative studies can affect healthcare providers’ treatment decisions, leading to patients receiving unsafe or ineffective treatments. • Biased meta-analyses: a surplus of positive results can distort the scientific record, influencing meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
To address these Research Topic, we present our Research Topic “ 1. LMH001 does not appear to significantly impact NOX2 pharmacology, and thus is unlikely to be an effective intervention in mitigating oxidative stress and inflammation.
Originally believed to impact NOX2 pharmacology by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation, LMH001 was found to be chemically unstable in the study by 2. Functional MRI static and dynamic functional connectivity predict ECT-antidepressant response but not ECT-associated cognitive changes.
Functional MRI static and dynamic functional connectivity effectively predict ECT-antidepressant response but fail to predict ECT-associated cognitive changes, according to a study by
By analyzing an ECT dataset using a fully automated independent component analysis framework, the authors extracted static and dynamic FNC data and developed predictive models. Their results reveal that changes in both sFNC and dFNC predict antidepressant outcomes and memory changes. Dynamic functional connectivity, however, did not significantly improve memory change prediction. These findings affirm the value of integrating dynamic functional connectivity analysis to better comprehend ECT’s mechanisms and outcomes. 3. Pharmacological modulation of circadian rhythms for the prevention of IBD pathogenesis may not be warranted.
4. Gabapentin and pregabalin correlate with an increased risk for dementia.
The study by
The “ 1. LMH001 does not appear to have a significant impact on NOX2 pharmacology, and thus is unlikely to be an effective intervention in mitigating oxidative stress and inflammation 2. Functional MRI static and dynamic functional connectivity predict ECT-antidepressant response but not ECT-associated cognitive changes 3. The modulation of circadian rhythms for the prevention of IBD pathogenesis may not be warranted 4. Gabapentin and pregabalin are correlated with an increased risk for dementia
The articles in this Research Topic illustrate the multitude of perspectives that necessarily complete one another and improve our understanding of the neurobiological complexity underlying current neuro-psychopharmacological interventions. Each article also presents a unique negative findings perspective, which we find informative in bettering our understanding of the addressed Research Topic, as compared to previously reported positive findings.
AP: Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing. RB: Writing–original draft, Writing–review and editing.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.