A Japanese national study applied sibling controls, inverse‑probability weighting, propensity matching, negative controls, E‑values, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis and found no Tylenol–autism link. This shows how pre‑specified robustness tests can vet observational pharmacoepidemiology before it is used in guidance.
— Agencies should require transparent robustness maps (negative controls, E‑values, sensitivity bounds) before issuing public health warnings based on observational data to avoid misleading policy.
Valerie Stivers
2026.01.16
82% relevant
The article covers a major national nutrition/policy shift (HHS/school milk guidance) based on contested nutrition science; this connects directly to the existing recommendation that agencies should publish pre‑specified robustness checks and sensitivity analyses before issuing sweeping health guidance.
Megan Rose
2026.01.15
90% relevant
The article documents apparent harm from a generic tacrolimus product and highlights gaps in how regulators and clinicians assess bioequivalence and postmarket signals; this mirrors the existing idea’s call for pre‑specified robustness tests (negative controls, E‑values, sibling designs, sensitivity analyses) before elevating or dismissing drug‑safety claims or issuing public guidance.
msmash
2026.01.15
90% relevant
The BMJ review (University of Oxford → BMJ, reported by CNN) highlights a medical policy consequence—weight regain after cessation—exactly the kind of finding that should come with a 'robustness map' (sibling controls, sensitivity bounds, negative controls) before being used to change practice or public guidance; it matches the call to require transparent robustness checks for observational pharmacoepidemiology.
Paul Sagar
2026.01.14
75% relevant
The article argues that simple narratives (scam diagnosis, parental gaming, or pure clinical rise) are inadequate and calls for careful, multi‑method evidence — the same procedural demand as the 'robustness maps' idea that says agencies and universities should publish sensitivity checks and negative controls before changing policy based on observational data.
msmash
2026.01.12
65% relevant
The article is an early pilot claim about a new therapeutic intervention; before clinical guidance or wider clinical use is promoted, the field needs pre‑specified robustness checks (replication, negative controls, sensitivity analyses) to avoid premature policy or coverage decisions.
msmash
2026.01.12
52% relevant
The article’s claim rests on aggregated RCT evidence; this connects to the existing idea that policymakers and clinicians should demand pre‑specified robustness checks (negative controls, sensitivity bounds) and transparent provenance before changing clinical practice or public guidance—i.e., use meta‑analytic results like this as the basis for formal robustness‑mapped guideline updates.
Kristen French
2026.01.09
60% relevant
The Nautilus story emphasizes the difficulty of disentangling correlated adversities (income, stress, neighborhood) and highlights use of a network/clustering analytic strategy — echoing the existing idea’s call for pre‑specified robustness analyses and careful causal decomposition before translating observational findings into policy.
Molly Glick
2026.01.08
72% relevant
The article documents diagnostic difficulty, underdiagnosis, and potential downstream harms (arrests, stigma), supporting the existing call that agencies and clinicians should demand transparent robustness checks (negative controls, sensitivity analyses) before using preliminary medical claims to shape policy or forensic practice.
msmash
2026.01.07
90% relevant
The existing idea argues agencies should require pre‑specified robustness analyses (negative controls, E‑values, sensitivity bounds) before issuing public health warnings. The Dietary Guidelines’ removal of numeric drinking caps and the omission of prior cancer risk language is directly connected: it changes the evidentiary bar for public guidance and illustrates why robustness maps and clear provenance should accompany guideline shifts.
Seeds of Science
2026.01.07
72% relevant
Both pieces call for systematic robustness work and explicit sensitivity analyses before elevating fragile observational findings into clinical or policy action; the article highlights retrospective incidence estimates and a single prospective study and argues for prospective, controlled, and provenance‑transparent research — the same methodological fixes urged in the existing idea.
Lucas Waldron
2026.01.06
92% relevant
ProPublica documents how tiny, legally consequential positive drug results (e.g., 18.4 ng/ml codeine) can prompt child‑welfare investigations despite being clinically and regulatorily trivial in other contexts; this is precisely the sort of case that argues for pre‑specified robustness checks and transparent provenance maps before authorities act on toxicology findings.
2026.01.05
78% relevant
The author’s critique functions as an argument for the same methodological remedy: before popular clinical claims are amplified into practice and policy, authors and institutions should present robustness checks (negative controls, sibling comparisons, sensitivity bounds). The article’s failure‑mode examples (misreading a neonatal study, overstating prevalence) illustrate why transparency‑first robustness maps are needed for high‑impact claims.
2026.01.05
95% relevant
The article argues exactly for the need the existing idea recommends: before issuing broad claims or guidance from observational or pooled trial evidence, publish sensitivity analyses and robustness maps (negative controls, E‑values, sibling controls) to show how fragile the inference is — the JAMA meta‑analysis and its DESS dependence are the concrete trigger.
2026.01.05
75% relevant
Framer argues for careful, nuanced evidence and documents many false attributions and misreads in clinical practice; this connects to the call that agencies should require robustness checks (negative controls, sibling designs, E‑values) before issuing public health warnings or policy changes.
2026.01.05
90% relevant
The author argues interpreting prevalence trends requires robustness checks and cautions against rushing from raw diagnostic counts to causal claims — the same methodological demand captured by the 'robustness map' proposal (negative controls, E‑values, sibling designs) used before issuing health policy.
2026.01.05
64% relevant
Kling and the respondents emphasize uncertainty about magnitude (what share of the rise is diagnostic change?) and call for precise quantification — aligning with the existing idea that policy and claims (including medical or causal claims) need pre‑specified robustness checks and sensitivity mapping before driving public policy.
2026.01.05
72% relevant
Yglesias argues that counting‑method changes produced the apparent maternal‑mortality rise; this underscores the existing idea that agencies should publish robustness checks and sensitivity analyses (robustness maps) before issuing alarming public‑health claims.
2026.01.04
62% relevant
CDC’s discussion of classification methods and provisional versus finalized counts connects to the call for transparent robustness tests and sensitivity reporting before public health statements; the article is essentially a methodological transparency move that reduces misinterpretation.
2026.01.04
62% relevant
The author’s call for skepticism about pooled literatures and discussion of corrective methods (trim‑and‑fill, sensitivity to imprecise studies) aligns with the existing idea that regulators should demand explicit robustness analyses (negative controls, E‑values, sensitivity bounds) before acting on observational findings.
Tyler Cowen
2026.01.03
72% relevant
Both the AEJ paper summarized here and the 'Robustness maps' idea emphasize careful causal inference in epidemiology using robustness checks and granular data; this study’s near‑universal microdata and an age‑eligibility quasi‑experiment exemplify the kind of design and robustness the existing idea calls for when issuing public‑health guidance.
BeauHD
2025.12.03
70% relevant
Both call for stronger evidentiary standards before making public‑health changes: the tattoo paper is an early, preclinical signal that would need translational robustness (replication, human epidemiology, sensitivity analyses) before policy; the existing idea argues for pre‑specified robustness checks and maps in pharmaco/epidemiology to avoid premature warnings or misdirected policy.
Steve Sailer
2025.12.02
60% relevant
Wainer et al.’s critique of Mississippi’s NAEP gains calls for robustness checks and bias‑sensitive analyses before declaring a policy triumph; this parallels the recommendation that policy claims based on observational data need pre‑specified robustness maps (negative controls, sensitivity bounds) before being exported as reforms.
Chris Bray
2025.11.30
82% relevant
Prasad’s memo, as reported, emphasizes limits of analysis and under‑reporting — directly connecting to the existing recommendation that agencies should publish robustness checks (negative controls, sensitivity bounds) before issuing strong safety claims or public‑health guidance; the article spotlights an instance where such transparency (or lack thereof) will matter politically and medically.
Andy Lewis
2025.11.29
72% relevant
The author’s demand for linkage of child‑clinic data to adult outcomes and for pre‑specified, rigorous tests mirrors the 'robustness map' idea—i.e., regulators should require stronger epidemiologic designs, negative controls, and sensitivity analyses rather than treating weak cohort claims as settled.
Theodore Dalrymple
2025.10.14
70% relevant
By invoking Bradford Hill criteria and warning against multiple‑comparison artifacts, the piece supports the principle that agencies and leaders should require pre‑specified robustness checks before issuing drug‑safety cautions—precisely the governance fix proposed for observational pharmacoepidemiology.
Cremieux
2025.10.03
100% relevant
The Japan administrative database study (2005–2022; 182,830 mothers, 217,602 children) coupled sibling design with negative controls and E‑values and reported null effects.
2025.07.30
62% relevant
The article argues HHS evaluations relied on weak self‑report data and lacked rigorous administrative outcome linkage; this echoes the existing idea’s call for pre‑specified robustness checks (negative controls, administrative outcomes) before policy or public messaging changes are acted upon.
2017.01.04
85% relevant
The review emphasizes methodological limitations, the need for prospective designs and precise exposure timing — aligning with the existing idea that public health agencies should require transparent robustness checks (negative controls, E‑values, sensitivity bounds) before issuing policy or warnings based on observational associations.
2002.06.04
60% relevant
While that existing idea is about pharmacoepidemiology, Croen et al.'s cautious conclusion—stating detection/diagnosis explain much but leaving incidence unresolved—illustrates the broader methodological lesson: publish robustness checks and avoid premature causal claims when administrative/registry definitions change.