Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

John Ioannidis


John P. A. Ioannidis (born 1965) is a Greek-American physician-scientist and professor at , specializing in meta-research, , , and the appraisal of scientific reliability. Born in and raised in , he earned his MD from the National University of in 1990 as top-ranked graduate and a DSc in biopathology in 1996, followed by training in and infectious diseases at Harvard and Tufts. Since 2010, he has held professorships in medicine, and population health, and biomedical data science at , while co-directing the Meta-Research Innovation Center (METRICS) and directing the Stanford Prevention Research Center. Ioannidis's meta-research has systematically exposed flaws in biomedical and clinical studies, including low statistical power, , and conflicts of interest that inflate false positives and undermine . His landmark 2005 paper, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, mathematically demonstrated that under common research conditions—small studies, low of hypotheses, and flexible analyses—most positive findings represent false discoveries rather than true effects, reshaping debates on scientific . This work, cited over 10,000 times, has catalyzed initiatives to enhance research rigor, such as improved trial reporting standards like and updates. With over 1,000 peer-reviewed publications and recognition as one of the most cited scientists globally, Ioannidis has advanced evidence synthesis, methodology, and large-scale epidemiological analyses, earning awards including the European Award for Excellence in Clinical Science (2007) and election to the (2018). His application of these principles to challenges, such as meta-analyses of infection fatality rates revealing orders-of-magnitude variability and generally lower risks than early projections, underscored the perils of hasty policy-making absent robust data.

Biography

Early life and education

John Ioannidis was born on August 21, 1965, in , . He was raised in , . Ioannidis attended , where he graduated as of his class in 1984. That same year, he received a National Award from the Greek Mathematical Society, recognizing his early aptitude in . He pursued medical education at the National and Kapodistrian University of Medical School, earning his MD degree while ranking at the top of his class. Ioannidis also obtained a (D.Sc.) from the University of .

Professional career

Academic positions and affiliations

Ioannidis completed his residency in at and fellowship in infectious diseases at before assuming research and faculty positions at the (NIH), , and . He joined as adjunct faculty in 1996, advancing to adjunct professor of medicine in 2002, and served as director of the Center for and Modeling from 2008 to 2010. From 1999 to 2010, Ioannidis chaired the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology at the in , attaining tenured full professorship there in 2003. During this tenure, he held concurrent adjunct appointments, including at and . In 2010, Ioannidis relocated to , initially as the C.F. Rehnborg Professor in Disease Prevention and director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center. He subsequently expanded his roles to include professor of medicine (Stanford Prevention Research Center), professor of and , and professor by courtesy in biomedical and statistics. Ioannidis also co-directs the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), which focuses on improving scientific research practices. At Stanford, he has contributed to developing graduate programs, including the PhD in and .

Editorial and leadership roles

Ioannidis served as editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation from 2010 to 2019. He has also held positions on the editorial boards of numerous prominent journals, including PLoS Medicine, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. In academic leadership, Ioannidis chaired the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology at the University of Ioannina Medical School from 1999 to 2010. He has been co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) since 2013, focusing on improving scientific research practices. Additionally, he served as president of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology and as senior advisor for knowledge integration at the National Cancer Institute. From 2008 to 2010, he directed the Center for Genetic Epidemiology and Modeling at Tufts University. These roles underscore his influence in shaping editorial standards and institutional directions in meta-research and evidence synthesis.

Research contributions

Meta-research and scientific reliability

John Ioannidis has made foundational contributions to meta-research by systematically analyzing the factors that undermine the reliability of published scientific findings, particularly in and . His work employs statistical modeling and empirical evaluation to demonstrate how biases, low statistical power, and flexible practices lead to high rates of false positives in the . Ioannidis argues that in fields where true effect sizes are small and prior probabilities of hypotheses are low, the positive predictive value of significant results can be minimal, often below 50%. In his seminal 2005 paper, "Why Most Published Findings Are False," published in , Ioannidis formalized these issues through propositions showing that the probability of a research claim being true decreases with smaller sizes, greater financial interests, warmer research rivalry, and more teams testing multiple hypotheses. The paper predicted that for most claims in non-highly powered , false findings may exceed true ones, a claim supported by subsequent replication efforts across disciplines. Corollaries emphasized that larger studies and those with lower more reliable results, while claims seeking to disprove effects are more robust than those asserting novel associations. This analysis has been cited over 10,000 times and catalyzed the broader reproducibility crisis discourse. Ioannidis extended this framework to critique meta-analyses and systematic reviews, highlighting their vulnerability to publication bias and heterogeneity. In collaborations, he has quantified how selective reporting and p-hacking inflate effect sizes, advocating for pre-registration, transparency in , and mandatory replication attempts to enhance scientific rigor. For instance, in preclinical research, he co-authored guidelines stressing the need for standardized reporting and independent validation to filter irreproducible results. More recently, Ioannidis's meta- has encompassed cross-disciplinary assessments of and . A 2024 review in the synthesized evidence showing persistent gaps in , with many fields exhibiting low replication rates despite reforms like and preregistration. He maintains that while incentives like "" perpetuate unreliability, evidence-based reforms—prioritizing large-scale consortia and Bayesian approaches—offer pathways to greater , though systemic of low-quality remains a challenge.

Evidence-based medicine and meta-analysis

Ioannidis advanced the methodological foundations of meta-analysis by addressing challenges in detecting and interpreting heterogeneity and bias. In his 2008 paper published in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, he analyzed common statistical tests such as the Q-test for heterogeneity and funnel plot asymmetry for publication bias, noting their low power in typical meta-analyses with fewer than 10–20 studies, which often yields false-negative results. He recommended cautious interpretation, favoring comprehensive sensitivity analyses, trim-and-fill methods, and cumulative meta-analysis to track evolving evidence over time, thereby enhancing the reliability of pooled effect estimates in evidence-based medicine. Ioannidis critiqued the practice of for deviations from its original emphasis on rigorous, unbiased synthesis of high-quality data. In a 2017 commentary, he contended that core EBM principles—prioritizing from randomized trials and systematic reviews—remain valid but have been compromised by "hijacking" through industry conflicts, regulatory incentives favoring approvals over patient outcomes, and excessive focus on surrogate endpoints like biomarkers at the expense of clinical harms and benefits. He urged reclaiming EBM by enforcing in funding, mandating full reporting, and prioritizing patient-centered outcomes over economic or expert-driven agendas. His analyses exposed flaws in the proliferation of meta-analyses undermining EBM credibility. In a 2016 Milbank Quarterly article, Ioannidis documented explosive growth, with meta-analyses increasing 2,635% from 1991 to 2014 (reaching 9,135 publications in 2014 alone), often resulting in redundancy—such as 21 overlapping meta-analyses on statins for between 2008 and 2015. He found 79% of 185 meta-analyses from 2007 to 2014 had industry involvement, with those employing manufacturer staff 22 times less likely to report negative results; additionally, non-Western meta-analyses (e.g., 63% of genetic association reviews from in 2014) frequently employed outdated methods, yielding misleading conclusions. Ioannidis estimated that the large majority of these syntheses are unnecessary, conflicted, or , advocating realignment through stricter preregistration, bias audits, and better linkage to primary research to restore their role in generating reliable evidence. Ioannidis applied these principles in conducting and evaluating large-scale meta-analyses to inform EBM applications. For example, he contributed to the interpretation of a 2018 comprehensive review of 522 double-blind randomized trials on 21 antidepressants, which used to rank efficacy and acceptability, revealing modest benefits over for most agents while highlighting variability due to sparse data and potential biases in trial reporting; this work underscored the value of advanced modeling to mitigate heterogeneity in psychiatric evidence synthesis.32802-7/fulltext)

Statistical methods and reproducibility

Ioannidis has developed statistical frameworks to explain low reproducibility rates in scientific research, emphasizing factors such as inadequate statistical power, bias, and multiple comparisons. In his 2005 PLOS Medicine paper, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," he derived a mathematical model showing that the positive predictive value (PPV) of significant results declines sharply when the pre-study odds of a true effect are low (e.g., less than 1:1) and power is modest (e.g., 80%), often yielding PPV below 50% even under ideal conditions without bias. This analysis posits that small effect sizes, prevalent in fields like genomics and epidemiology, necessitate impractically large samples for high power, leading to widespread false positives that fail to replicate. Building on this, Ioannidis critiqued common statistical practices, including the misuse of p-values in significance testing (NHST), where thresholds like p < 0.05 encourage selective reporting and inflate type I errors. He co-authored studies analyzing p-values from millions of papers, revealing that over 96% of reported results in biomedical literature are significant, indicative of and practices like p-hacking that compromise . In another survey of top journals, p-values in figures and tables were nearly always significant (p < 0.05), underscoring selective presentation that erodes trust in findings. To enhance reproducibility, Ioannidis recommends study designs prioritizing high power via larger, multi-center collaborations, pre-specification of hypotheses and analyses to curb flexibility, and routine replication efforts over isolated significance claims. He categorizes reproducibility into three levels: methods (exact procedural repetition), results (consistent quantitative outcomes), and inferences (stable conclusions across contexts), noting that while methods reproducibility is feasible but resource-intensive, inference reproducibility demands mitigation of biases like financial conflicts and small-study effects. His meta-research syntheses, including a 2024 review, quantify low reproducibility across disciplines—e.g., replication rates below 50% in preclinical research—while advocating transparency in data sharing and code to verify statistical claims. These contributions have informed guidelines for robust statistical inference, stressing effect sizes and confidence intervals over dichotomous p-values.

COVID-19 epidemiology and policy analysis

In March 2020, Ioannidis published an opinion piece warning that policy responses to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic risked becoming a "fiasco" due to reliance on unreliable early data, such as case fatality rates (CFRs) exceeding 3% from skewed testing of hospitalized patients, without accounting for undetected community spread or true infection fatality rates (IFRs). He emphasized the need for rapid seroprevalence surveys to estimate prevalence and IFR, arguing that panic-driven measures like widespread lockdowns could cause more harm than the virus if the threat was milder than portrayed, particularly for non-elderly populations. This view contrasted with initial models predicting millions of deaths absent intervention, highlighting uncertainties in transmission dynamics and lethality that invalidated one-size-fits-all suppression strategies. Ioannidis's epidemiological analyses focused on synthesizing seroprevalence data to refine IFR estimates, revealing that global IFRs were likely around 0.15%–0.2% early in the , far below initial CFRs, with variations by age and region. In a 2021 overview of systematic evaluations, he reconciled disparate studies showing community spread often 10–50 times higher than reported cases, yielding IFRs under 0.25% in many settings and underscoring overestimation risks from under-detection of mild infections. A 2023 of 31 studies estimated age-stratified IFRs for non-elderly populations (under 70 years) at approximately 0.0003% for children, 0.002%–0.01% for young adults, and up to 0.05%–0.1% for those 60–69, absent selective testing biases or confounders. These findings implied the virus posed minimal direct mortality risk to most, with over 95% of deaths concentrated in those over 70 or with comorbidities, challenging narratives equating broad societal shutdowns with proportional threat mitigation. He also critiqued death counting methods, noting synchronicity with baseline mortality waves could inflate or deflate attributions, potentially leading to 20–50% misclassifications in some jurisdictions. On policy, Ioannidis advocated evidence-based non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) prioritizing high-risk groups, such as the elderly in care facilities, over indiscriminate lockdowns, which he argued inflicted disproportionate including , deterioration, and delayed care for other conditions. A 2021 study he co-authored analyzed 11 U.S. states and found mandatory and business closures reduced by only about 10–20% in mobility metrics, with effects waning over time and confounded by voluntary changes, suggesting limited causal on case trajectories. He questioned prolonged closures, citing low IFRs in children (under 0.001%) and minimal from pediatric settings, and called for randomized trials on and over observational mandates. In to the U.S. on May 6, 2020, he supported initial targeted measures but warned against extending them indefinitely without robust data, estimating that Sweden's less restrictive approach—focusing voluntary distancing and elder protection—achieved comparable per-capita mortality to stricter regimes while avoiding harms. Ioannidis stressed causal realism in , insisting interventions be weighed against total societal costs, with post-hoc analyses showing lockdowns saved few lives relative to their burdens in low-risk cohorts.

Other fields: Nutrition, genetics, and beyond

Ioannidis has applied meta-research scrutiny to nutritional epidemiology, identifying systemic biases and limitations that undermine reliable conclusions. Observational studies, which dominate the field, suffer from residual confounding, measurement errors in dietary recall, and selective reporting, leading to exaggerated or implausible associations between foods and health outcomes. For instance, he documented claims of risk reductions from single dietary factors surpassing established interventions like , attributing these to statistical artifacts rather than causal effects. In a , he concluded that despite decades of research, nutritional epidemiology has produced minimal actionable , urging a shift toward large-scale randomized trials and refined observational designs to mitigate these flaws. In , Ioannidis has analyzed the challenges of in association studies, particularly highlighting the low validation rates of early candidate gene research. Pre-genome-wide association study (GWAS) candidate gene findings replicated at rates as low as 1.2% when tested in subsequent GWAS, due to small sample sizes, , and insufficient statistical power. He co-developed methods for meta-analyzing GWAS data to enhance detection of true associations while addressing heterogeneity across studies. These efforts contributed to international consortia improving by prioritizing large-scale, agnostic evaluations over hypothesis-driven but underpowered inquiries. Beyond these areas, Ioannidis has contributed to clinical through the and of randomized controlled trials in fields such as management, , and antibiotic stewardship, emphasizing rigorous evidence generation outside purely observational paradigms. His work in molecular includes evaluations of biomarkers for outcomes across 804 studies, underscoring the need for prospective validation to distinguish signal from noise. These applications extend his focus on and trial methodology to practical health interventions, advocating for transparency in industry-influenced research.

Controversies and debates

Backlash over COVID-19 assessments

Ioannidis faced significant criticism for his early assessments of 's lethality and the efficacy of containment measures, particularly after publishing a , , opinion piece in STAT News arguing that policy decisions were being made without reliable data on infection fatality rates (IFR), which he suggested might be overstated due to undercounted infections. Critics, including epidemiologists and experts, accused him of prematurely downplaying the pandemic's severity, with some labeling his views as overly optimistic and potentially dangerous amid rising case counts. For instance, a April 24, 2020, Undark article highlighted accusations that Ioannidis's analyses echoed the flawed methodologies he had long critiqued in meta-research, such as reliance on limited early data from seroprevalence studies. A focal point of backlash was Ioannidis's co-authorship of a April 2020 Stanford seroprevalence study in , which estimated a much higher infection rate than reported cases, implying an IFR as low as 0.12-0.2%—far below initial WHO and CDC figures exceeding 1%. Detractors, including statisticians and virologists, contended that the study's test had high false-positive rates, potentially inflating prevalence estimates and understating fatality risks; a November 30, 2020, piece described this as part of the "Ioannidis Affair," where critics argued the low IFR finding could be a statistical artifact dismissed too readily by proponents. Ioannidis defended the work by emphasizing serological testing's challenges but maintained that underascertainment of mild cases was empirically evident, later synthesizing data in a 2021 estimating a global IFR of approximately 0.15%. Media outlets amplified the controversy, portraying Ioannidis as a figure embraced by lockdown skeptics despite his calls for targeted protections over universal restrictions. A December 16, 2020, Washington Post report detailed backlash following his appearance, where he reiterated doubts about blanket shutdowns' net benefits, drawing rebukes from academics who viewed his positions as minimizing evidence of high transmissibility and hospital overloads in hotspots. Prominent critics like publicly challenged Ioannidis's forecasting models in June 2020, arguing they underestimated tail risks and fat-tailed dynamics of exponential spread, framing the debate as a clash between probabilistic caution and precautionary extremism. Ioannidis responded in May 2020 via Social Science Space, asserting that attacks overshadowed substantive data gaps, such as inconsistent reporting and modeling assumptions that inflated projected deaths. The intensity of the response, including professional ostracism noted in a , reflected broader institutional pressures during the , where dissenting epidemiological views faced scrutiny from consensus-driven bodies; nonetheless, subsequent seroprevalence data from multiple regions aligned more closely with Ioannidis's revised low IFR estimates for non-elderly populations (e.g., 0.035% for ages 0-59). This backlash underscored tensions between empirical and urgent imperatives, with Ioannidis's critics often prioritizing worst-case scenarios over evolving .

Critiques of metascience pessimism

Critics of Ioannidis's metascience pessimism, particularly his 2005 assertion that most published research findings are false, argue that his mathematical model relies on overly restrictive assumptions, such as low statistical power (often below 20-50%), small effect sizes, and negligible prior probabilities of true effects, which do not hold across all scientific domains. These assumptions amplify the predicted positive false discovery rate (FDR) to over 50% in hypothetical scenarios, but empirical evaluations in medicine indicate lower rates; for example, an analysis of p-values from abstracts in high-impact journals estimated an overall FDR of 14% (standard deviation 1%), suggesting that the majority of reported significant results are not false positives. Ioannidis contested this estimate, claiming methodological flaws in automated p-value extraction and failure to account for biases, yet the figure aligns with other reanalyses questioning the universality of his predictions. Further critiques highlight that Ioannidis's framework emphasizes point-null testing in a dichotomous true/false , neglecting continuous sizes and Bayesian accumulation of over multiple studies, which can yield reliable inferences even from noisy initial findings. In clinical trials, for instance, meta-analyses of Cochrane reviews show observed discovery rates around 26-27%, with maximum FDR estimates of 11-14% and replication rates exceeding 60%, implying more false negatives from underpowered studies than false positives dominating the . Such counters blanket by demonstrating domain-specific variability; fields with larger , like smoking's impact on health, exhibit lower FDRs, and scientific self-correction—via replication attempts and meta-research—mitigates early errors without invalidating cumulative progress, as seen in rapid advancements like development. Proponents of these critiques maintain that while and low power inflate errors, the model's deterministic pessimism discourages warranted research and overlooks incentives for rigor, such as preregistration and large-scale collaborations, which have empirically reduced irreproducibility in targeted areas. A response to Ioannidis specifically challenged claims of over 50% unreliability in , arguing that his corollaries undervalue meta-analyses capable of modest but genuine evidential gains when aggregating data. These arguments do not deny challenges but contend that Ioannidis's emphasis on worst-case scenarios fosters undue cynicism, potentially undermining public trust in verifiable advancements rather than spurring balanced reforms.

Reception and impact

Praise for reforming scientific practices

Ioannidis's meta-research has been acclaimed for exposing systemic flaws in scientific inquiry and advocating methodological reforms to bolster evidence reliability. His 2005 paper, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," mathematically demonstrated how biases, low statistical power, and publication pressures inflate false positives, influencing the recognition of the reproducibility crisis and prompting calls for preregistration, larger sample sizes, and transparent reporting. The paper, the most cited and downloaded in 's history, has garnered tens of thousands of citations and is credited with elevating meta-research as a dedicated to self-correction in science. As director of Stanford's Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), established in 2014, Ioannidis has been praised for institutionalizing efforts to quantify and mitigate research waste, including through empirical audits of replication rates and incentives. Peers have hailed him as achieving "hero status" in for highlighting shoddy practices and providing data-analytic proof against pervasive biases in . A 2010 Atlantic dubbed him "one of the most influential alive," underscoring his role in fostering a culture of rigor over unchecked publication volume. This acclaim extends to his emphasis on multidisciplinary validation and toward hype-driven findings, positioning him as a "superhero" for flawed domains by empirically documenting error rates as low as 10-25% in preclinical studies. His advocacy for reforming incentives—such as prioritizing clinical utility over novelty—has informed policy discussions on funding allocation and journal standards, contributing to broader shifts like the adoption of registered reports in journals.

Influence on policy and public discourse

Ioannidis's foundational work on research reliability and has shaped evidence appraisal in formulation, emphasizing rigorous standards to avoid overreliance on flawed studies. His methodologies underpin systematic reviews by organizations such as the Cochrane Collaboration, which directly inform guidelines from bodies like the and national agencies including the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (). For instance, his critiques of selective reporting and bias in clinical trials have prompted policy shifts toward mandatory preregistration of studies and transparency in funding disclosures, reducing the propagation of unreliable evidence into regulatory decisions. During the , Ioannidis exerted significant influence on public discourse by challenging initial fatality rate estimates and advocating -driven approaches over blanket interventions. In a March 17, , STAT News article, he warned of a potential "fiasco" from decisions lacking reliable seroprevalence , estimating fatality rates far lower than early models suggested (around 0.15-0.25% overall, versus higher figures from case-based ). This , grounded in early serological studies, fueled debates on proportionality, providing empirical support for targeted protection strategies over universal restrictions and cited in critiques by figures advocating for cost-benefit analyses of non-pharmaceutical interventions. His May 6, 2020, testimony before the U.S. Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee underscored the need for evidence-based responses, highlighting uncertainties in transmission dynamics and the risks of policy overreach amid incomplete data. Ioannidis's subsequent publications, including over 80 on , influenced skeptical stances in discourse, such as questioning the efficacy of prolonged closures and mandates absent high-quality randomized , thereby contributing to legislative pushes for reopening economies in states like and Sweden's lighter-touch model. These interventions highlighted politicization's distorting effects on , as Ioannidis noted in interviews, where ideological pressures sidelined probabilistic risk assessments in favor of precautionary extremes. Beyond acute crises, Ioannidis has impacted broader policy dialogues on scientific , advocating for reforms to curb waste in publicly funded research—estimated at up to 85% irreproducibility in preclinical fields—which has informed funding criteria at agencies like the (NIH). His emphasis on has entered public discourse through appearances and books, fostering awareness of how biases and incentives undermine trust, as seen in discussions on restoring evidence hierarchies in regulatory .

Recognition

Awards and honors

Ioannidis has received multiple prestigious awards recognizing his contributions to clinical science, meta-research, and . In 2007, he was awarded the European Award for Excellence in Clinical Science by the European Society for and Investigation. Other notable prizes include the Medal for Distinguished Service from (2015); the Chanchlani Global Health Award (2017); the Epiphany Science Courage Award (2018); the Einstein Fellowship (2018); the Gordon Award from the (2019); the Albert Stuyvenberg Medal from the European Society for Clinical Investigation (2021); the Harwood Prize for Intellectual Courage (2022); the Blake Award from the Association of American Physicians (2024); and the Founders' Medal for Lifelong Contributions to Meta-Science from MAER-Net (2024). He has been elected to several distinguished academies, including the Association of American Physicians (2009), the European Academy of Cancer Sciences (2010), the American Epidemiological Society (2015), the European Academy of Sciences and Arts (2015), the National Academy of Medicine (2018), and the Accademia delle Scienze of Bologna (2021). Ioannidis holds honorary doctorates from the Erasmus University Rotterdam (2015), National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (2017), Tilburg University (2019), University of Edinburgh (2021), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2023), McMaster University (2024), and Woxsen University (ceremony October 2025). He also received honorary titles from the Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas (FORTH) (2014) and the University of Ioannina (2015).

References

  1. [1]
    John P.A. Ioannidis - Stanford Profiles
    Professor of Medicine (Stanford Prevention Research Center), of Epidemiology and Population Health and, by courtesy, of Biomedical Data Science Medicine.
  2. [2]
    John P.A. Ioannidis | Stanford Medicine
    Professor of Medicine (Stanford Prevention Research Center), of Epidemiology and Population Health and, by courtesy, of Biomedical Data Science
  3. [3]
    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False | PLOS Medicine
    Aug 30, 2005 · Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. John P. A. Ioannidis. John P. A. Ioannidis. This article has been corrected. View correction.Correction · View Reader Comments · View Figures (6) · View About the Authors
  4. [4]
    ‪John P.A. Ioannidis‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬
    John P.A. Ioannidis. Professor of Medicine/Health Research & Policy/Biomedical Data Science/Statistics, Stanford Univ. Verified email at stanford.edu - Homepage.
  5. [5]
    A meta-epidemiological assessment of transparency indicators of ...
    A meta-epidemiological assessment of transparency indicators of infectious disease models. Emmanuel A. Zavalis, John P. A. Ioannidis ... COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ...
  6. [6]
    In the coronavirus pandemic, we're making decisions ... - STAT News
    John P.A. Ioannidis is professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical ...
  7. [7]
    John P.A. Ioannidis, M.D., D.Sc. | Science | AAAS
    Dr. Ioannidis has worked in the fields of evidence-based medicine, clinical investigation, clinical and molecular epidemiology, clinical research methodology.Missing: biography key facts
  8. [8]
    Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, Stanford University - MIDAS
    Recipient of many awards (e.g. European Award for Excellence in Clinical Science [2007], Medal for Distinguished Service, Teachers College, Columbia ...
  9. [9]
    John P.A. Ioannidis | Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability
    Moved to Stanford in 2010, initially as Director/C.F. Rehnborg Chair at Stanford Prevention Research Center, then diversified with appointments in 4 departments ...
  10. [10]
    John Ioannidis | Meta Research Innovation Center at Stanford
    John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc is the C.F. Rehnborg Professor in Disease Prevention, and Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy, of Biomedical ...
  11. [11]
    John P.A. Ioannidis - Scholar Nexus
    Jul 24, 2025 · Ioannidis holds an MD and DSc in Biopathology from the National University of Athens, with training in internal medicine and infectious diseases ...
  12. [12]
    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - NIH
    Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. References. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false.
  13. [13]
    Reproducibility in Science | Circulation Research
    Jan 2, 2015 · Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research. C. Glenn Begley and John P.A. IoannidisAuthor Info & ...
  14. [14]
    A manifesto for reproducible science | Nature Human Behaviour
    Jan 10, 2017 · Here we propose a series of measures that we believe will improve research efficiency and robustness of scientific findings by directly targeting specific ...
  15. [15]
    Transparency, bias, and reproducibility across science: a meta ... - JCI
    Nov 15, 2024 · Transparency, bias, and reproducibility across science: a meta-research view. John P.A. Ioannidis.
  16. [16]
    Transparency, bias, and reproducibility across science: a meta ...
    Nov 15, 2024 · Transparency, bias, and reproducibility across science: a meta-research view · John PA Ioannidis · Series information.
  17. [17]
    Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta‐analysis
    Oct 31, 2008 · Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis ... John P. A. Ioannidis Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology
  18. [18]
    https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(17)30144-0/fulltext
  19. [19]
    The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted ...
    This article aims to explore the growth of published systematic reviews and meta‐analyses and to estimate how often they are redundant, misleading, or serving ...
  20. [20]
    5 Questions: John Ioannidis discusses large meta-analysis of ...
    Feb 21, 2018 · In a highly comprehensive meta-analysis of more than 500 clinical trials, researchers from around the world have drawn conclusions about the efficacy of 21 ...
  21. [21]
    Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide ...
    Misinterpretation and abuse of statistical tests, confidence intervals, and statistical power have been decried for decades, yet remain rampant.
  22. [22]
    What Have We (Not) Learnt from Millions of Scientific Papers with P ...
    Mar 20, 2019 · P values linked to null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is the most widely (mis)used method of statistical inference.
  23. [23]
    P values in display items are ubiquitous and almost invariably ...
    P values in display items are ubiquitous and almost invariably significant: A survey of top science journals. Ioana Alina Cristea, John P. A. Ioannidis. Ioana ...
  24. [24]
    Scientists Must Replicate Findings, Ioannidis Says - NIH Record
    May 3, 2019 · He believes scientists must replicate potential new discoveries and see what “survives different efforts to reproduce these results either ...
  25. [25]
    Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of ...
    Abstract. Background: Estimates of community spread and infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 have varied across studies. Efforts to synthesize the evidence ...
  26. [26]
    Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly ...
    Jan 1, 2023 · The objective of this study was to accurately estimate the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 among non-elderly people in the absence of ...
  27. [27]
    Over- and under-estimation of COVID-19 deaths - PubMed
    The ratio of COVID-19-attributable deaths versus "true" COVID-19 deaths depends on the synchronicity of the epidemic wave with population mortality; ...
  28. [28]
    Assessing mandatory stay‐at‐home and business closure effects on ...
    Jan 5, 2021 · The most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures.
  29. [29]
    Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on ...
    The most restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for controlling the spread of COVID-19 are mandatory stay-at-home and business closures.<|separator|>
  30. [30]
    [PDF] John P.A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc COVID-19 represents a major crisis ...
    May 6, 2020 · Shelter-in-place and lockdown orders were justified initially, when announcements declared a new, contagious virus with 3.4% fatality rate and ...
  31. [31]
    Implausible results in human nutrition research - PubMed
    Implausible results in human nutrition research. ... Author. John P A Ioannidis. Affiliation. 1 Stanford Prevention Research ...
  32. [32]
    The Challenge of Reforming Nutritional Epidemiologic Research
    Aug 23, 2018 · In this Viewpoint, Ioannidis discusses the status of nutritional epidemiologic research and posits that radical reform is needed in the ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] John PA Ioannidis, MD, DSc - SUHF
    Candidate genes replicated through GWAS: replication rate = 1.2%. Ioannidis, Tarone, McLaughlin, Epidemiology 2011. Page 16. Prinz et al., Nature Reviews Drug ...
  34. [34]
    Meta-analysis methods for genome-wide association studies and ...
    We overview both widely applied and newer statistical methods for GWAS meta-analysis, including issues of interpretation and assessment of sources of ...
  35. [35]
    https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.0000000000000260
  36. [36]
    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.43425
  37. [37]
    On Covid-19, a Respected Science Watchdog Raises Eyebrows
    Apr 24, 2020 · For his Covid-19 work, the Stanford scientist John Ioannidis is being accused of the same bad science he has criticized. Top: John Ioannidis ...Missing: backlash | Show results with:backlash
  38. [38]
    The Ioannidis Affair: A Tale of Major Scientific Overreaction
    Nov 30, 2020 · Critics complained that the low rate determined in the study, on which Ioannidis was a co-author, could have statistically been all false ...Missing: backlash | Show results with:backlash
  39. [39]
    Reconciling estimates of global spread and infection fatality rates of ...
    Mar 26, 2021 · The available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in ...
  40. [40]
    A top scientist questioned virus lockdowns on Fox News. The ...
    Dec 16, 2020 · Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis's skepticism of the coronavirus's lethality and shutdowns to contain it drew praise in some political corners and ...
  41. [41]
    How to Handle Reasonable Scientific Disagreement: The Case of ...
    Feb 25, 2022 · In this chapter we discuss the recent debate between John Ioannidis and Nassim Taleb about the COVID-19 forecasts and the measures that should ...Missing: backlash | Show results with:backlash
  42. [42]
    John Ioannidis Responds to His COVID-19 Critics
    May 15, 2020 · The Stanford University scientist John Ioannidis wrote a short, viral essay for STAT arguing that the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic could be “a once ...Missing: backlash | Show results with:backlash
  43. [43]
    John Ioannidis talks about the bungled response to COVID-19 - IHMC
    Apr 19, 2023 · Episode 151: John Ioannidis talks about the bungled response to COVID-19 ... infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population.
  44. [44]
    Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly ...
    Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population ... The work of John Ioannidis is supported by an unrestricted gift from ...
  45. [45]
    A Prophet of Scientific Rigor—and a Covid Contrarian - WIRED
    May 1, 2020 · John Ioannidis laid bare the foibles of medical science. Now medical science is returning the favor.Missing: backlash | Show results with:backlash
  46. [46]
    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - PMC - NIH
    Aug 30, 2005 · It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.
  47. [47]
    An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and ... - PubMed
    We estimate that the overall rate of false discoveries among reported results is 14% (sd 1%), contrary to previous claims.Missing: Ioannidis | Show results with:Ioannidis
  48. [48]
    Why “An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and ...
    Sep 24, 2013 · Instead of challenging my real arguments about false research findings (Ioannidis, 2005a), Jager and Leek attacked a strawman thereof, using a ...Missing: critique | Show results with:critique
  49. [49]
    Are most published research findings false in a continuous universe?
    In 2005, John Ioannidis published an article with the alarming conclusion that most published findings in biomedical science are false [1]. The work, which has ...
  50. [50]
    Ioannidis is Wrong Most of the Time - Replicability-Index
    Dec 24, 2020 · He is best known for the title of his article “Why most published research findings are false” that has been cited nearly 5,000 times. The ...
  51. [51]
    assessing the unreliability of the medical literature: a response to ...
    A recent article in this journal (Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124) argued that more than half of published ...
  52. [52]
    What proportion of published research findings are false?
    some because the findings are incorrect. What is the extent of the problem?<|control11|><|separator|>
  53. [53]
    John Ioannidis has dedicated his life to quantifying how science is ...
    Feb 16, 2015 · He graduated at the top of his University of Athens School of Medicine class at 25, and it wasn't before long that The Atlantic called him ...Missing: undergraduate | Show results with:undergraduate
  54. [54]
    Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science - The Atlantic
    Nov 15, 2010 · In the late 1990s, Ioannidis set up a base at the University of Ioannina. He pulled together his team, which remains largely intact today ...
  55. [55]
    Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David ...
    Mar 2, 2016 · This is a confession building on a conversation with David Sackett in 2004 when I shared with him some personal adventures in evidence-based ...
  56. [56]
    All science should inform policy and regulation | PLOS Medicine
    May 3, 2018 · John P. A. Ioannidis · Not all scientific information is created equal. Large differences exist across topics on how much is known, and with what ...
  57. [57]
    A Defense of John Ioannidis and Metascience - RealClearScience
    Apr 23, 2025 · Ioannidis made it clear to scientists around the world that an extraordinarily large proportion of modern research is irreproducible— in other ...Missing: pessimism | Show results with:pessimism<|separator|>
  58. [58]
    Ioannidis on the politicization of science - Edward Feser
    Sep 11, 2021 · Regarding the damage that the politicization of science has done, Ioannidis says: Politics had a deleterious influence on pandemic science.Missing: discourse | Show results with:discourse
  59. [59]
    Transcript: John Ioannidis Keynote - ProMarket
    May 8, 2025 · This slide is a “meta-meta-meta-assessment” that I did with Daniele Fanelli and Rodrigo Costas. We took meta-analyses, and then we took meta- ...
  60. [60]
    Restoring trust in science: John Ioannidis and Peter Copeland for ...
    Jul 24, 2025 · John Ioannidis, one of the world's most cited voices confronting these challenges, joins Inside Policy Talks. Dr. Ioannidis, a Stanford ...
  61. [61]
    Award | MAER Net
    In 2024, the Founder's Medal was awarded for the first time at our annual MAER-Net Colloquium at the University of Augsburg to Professor John P.A. Ioannidis.