This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
In recent years, there has been a growing focus on the unreliability of published biomedical and clinical research. To introduce effective new scientific contributors to the culture of health care, we propose a "datathon" or "hackathon" model in which participants with disparate, but potentially synergistic and complementary, knowledge and skills effectively combine to address questions faced by clinicians. The continuous peer review intrinsically provided by follow-up datathons, which take up prior uncompleted projects, might produce more reliable research, either by providing a different perspective on the study design and methodology or by replication of prior analyses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aboab et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: