Stochastic resonance can be used as a measuring tool to quantify the ability of the human brain to interpret noise contaminated visual patterns. Here we report the results of a psychophysics experiment which show that the brain can consistently and quantitatively interpret detail in a stationary image obscured with time varying noise and that both the noise intensity and its temporal characteristics strongly determine the perceived image quality. [S0031-9007(97)02344-2]

IMPORTANCE Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and occasionally finds evidence of substantial departures from good clinical practice and research misconduct. However, the FDA has no systematic method of communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-reviewed literature.OBJECTIVES To identify published clinical trials in which an FDA inspection found significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices, to describe violations, and to determine whether the violations are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature. DESIGN AND SETTINGCross-sectional analysis of publicly available documents, dated from , describing FDA inspections of clinical trial sites in which significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices was found. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESFor each inspection document that could be linked to a specific published clinical trial, the main measure was a yes/no determination of whether there was mention in the peer-reviewed literature of problems the FDA had identified. RESULTS Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%). Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract