George Liberopoulos

TL;DR: The majority of examined studies claimed that they found factors that could offer additional predictive value beyond what the FRS could achieve; however, most had flaws in their design, analyses, and reporting that cast some doubt on the reliability of the claims for improved prediction.

TL;DR: The examination of the existing international ranking systems suggests that generic challenges include adjustment for institutional size, definition of institutions, implications of average measurements of excellence versus measurements of extremes, adjustments for scientific field, time frame of measurement and allocation of credit for excellence.

TL;DR: Reporting of statistically significant results was more common with structured abstracts, and was less common in US-based studies and in cancer outcomes, and the proportion and correlates of reporting statistically significant and nonsignificant results in the abstract were examined.

TL;DR: The modest correlations, differing risk estimates, and considerable between-association heterogeneity suggest that differential ancestral effects can be anticipated and genomic risk markers may need separate further evaluation in different ancestry groups.

TL;DR: Reclassification studies would benefit from more rigorous methodological standards; otherwise claims for improved reclassification may remain spurious.