Will it replicate, fail to replicate or be retracted by market close (March 2026)?
Replication: Main claim substantially reproduced and published by a different, independant lab, as perceived by a person skilled in the art. Will only count non-predatory journals of decent reputation (not necessarily top tier).
Failure to replicate: According to the same criteria, a publication reporting on a failed attempt to replicate. I will perform a citation search from the article under examination.
No replication attempt published: Failure to find either of the two previous outcome by market close.
Retraction: Official retraction of the paper by the editor, or notice of concerns regarding the main claim(s) of the paper.
Controversial resolution: Bet YES here for insurance against incompetence, failure of literature search, or against ambiguous findings. Resolves Yes or No according to Manifold Poll conducted after market close, running for 1 week and linked in the comment, asking whether the resolution for the other item is controversial.
Publication:
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.027
Pubpeer:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E61AC72AE0402C6A62A84E36ED2AEA#
In case of ambiguity, I might discuss in the comment, halt trading temporarily, or even resolve N/A. Welcoming comments and suggestions regarding resolution criteria, when formulated well in advance of the resolving event. There is an element of subjective judgment, and resolution risk in this market: you can minimize it by sharing your findings in the comments (in particular links to possible replicating studies) , but ultimately you unfortunately do have to trust my judgment somewhat. Note: There will be no early resolution of any options.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ119 | |
| 2 | Ṁ8 | |
| 3 | Ṁ5 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1 | |
| 5 | Ṁ0 |
The market has been resolved given that no failure to replicate paper was published.
However, and this is is a bit unsatisfying, there is a preprint of a failure to replicate this exact work, from 2023. Looks credible at a first glance, but not published, so not fit for the resolution criteria. Might reworks criteria for future markets.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.21.567983v1
If you think this is controversial, comment angrily here and I will make the poll re: controversial resolution. otherwise resolving that one No in a week.