I've been reading this paper on a major data analysis error - see below.
ABSTRACT We re-analyzed the data from a recent large-scale study that reported strong correlations between DNA signatures of microbial organisms and 33 different cancer types and that created machine-learning predictors with near-perfect accuracy at distinguishing among cancers. We found at least two fundamental flaws in the reported data and in the methods: (i) errors in the genome database and the associated computational methods led to millions of false-positive findings of bacterial reads across all samples, largely because most of the sequences identified as bacteria were instead human; and (ii) errors in the transformation of the raw data created an artificial signature, even for microbes with no reads detected, tagging each tumor type with a distinct signal that the machine-learning programs then used to create an apparently accurate classifier. Each of these problems invalidates the results, leading to the conclusion that the microbiome-based classifiers for identifying cancer presented in the study are entirely wrong. These flaws have subsequently affected more than a dozen additional published studies that used the same data and whose results are likely invalid as well.
What are some steps that folks take to make sure this doesn't happen in their labs? Does anyone have any good best practices on automated tests or team management techniques they take?