Importance of Virtual Platforms in Improving the Reproducibility of Data in Cancer Research

Document Type : Commentary


Department of Immunopathology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India


Virtual platforms have revolutionized distance education, making it accessible worldwide and empowering scientists, academicians, and researchers to access knowledge effortlessly. These platforms provide flexibility, allowing the users to tailor their learning experience to their needs and integrating knowledge into their work. Reproducibility is crucial in cancer research, and researchers integrate data analysis into virtual or electronic learning (e-Learning) platforms to facilitate replication and verification, promoting transparency and reliability. This integration enhances accessibility and enables collaboration among scientists and stakeholders in the fight against cancer. Virtual learning offers written and audio-visual communication benefits facilitated by electronic and web-enabling advancements. In the dynamic virtual realm, researchers transcend limitations, exchange knowledge, and push the boundaries of cancer research. Virtual platforms provide time efficiency and financial freedom, while advanced tools support data analysis and facilitate new insights. These tools unlock hidden patterns and accelerate the pace of discovery. The digital ecosystem generates new ideas, improves research methodology, and enhances research quality. Limitless collaboration and advanced tools propel cancer research, unravelling complex data with precision and innovation. The potential of cyberspace to revolutionize scientific research in the future, therefore, is promising.


  1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, Znaor A, Bray F. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview. Int J Cancer. 2021 Apr 5. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33588. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33818764.
  2. Nature research custom. Six factors affecting reproducibility in life science research and how to handle them. Advertorial 26.03.2019.
  3. Reynolds LM, Cavadino A, Chin S, Little Z, Akroyd A, Tennant G, Dobson R, Broom R, Gautier A. The benefits and acceptability of virtual reality interventions for women with metastatic breast cancer in their homes; a pilot randomised trial. BMC Cancer. 2022 Apr 2;22(1):360. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-09081-z. PMID: 35366823; PMCID: PMC8976512.
  4. Fanelli D. “Positive” results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PLoS One. 2010 Apr 7;5(4):e10068. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010068. PMID: 20383332; PMCID: PMC2850928.
  5. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005 Aug;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Epub 2005 Aug 30. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2022 Aug 25;19(8):e1004085. PMID: 16060722; PMCID: PMC1182327.
  6. D. Sterling, W. L. Rosenbaum & J. J. Weinkam. Publication Decisions Revisited: The Effect of the Outcome of Statistical Tests on the Decision to Publish and Vice Versa. The American Statistician. 1995; 49:1, 108-112, DOI: 10.1080/00031305.1995.10476125
  7. Errington TM, Denis A, Perfito N, Iorns E, Nosek BA. Challenges for assessing replicability in preclinical cancer biology. Elife. 2021 Dec 7;10:e67995. doi: 10.7554/eLife.67995. PMID: 34874008; PMCID: PMC8651289.
  8. Vaona A, Banzi R, Kwag KH, Rigon G, Cereda D, Pecoraro V, Tramacere I, Moja L. E-learning for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 21;1(1):CD011736. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011736.pub2. PMID: 29355907; PMCID: PMC6491176.
  9. Ioannidis JP. How to make more published research true. PLoS Med. 2014 Oct 21;11(10):e1001747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747. PMID: 25334033; PMCID: PMC4204808.
  10. Quintana DS. From preregistration to publication: a non-technical primer for conducting a meta-analysis to synthesize correlational data. Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 8;6:1549. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01549. PMID: 26500598; PMCID: PMC4597034.
  11. Kaplan RM, Irvin VL. Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased Over Time. PLoS One. 2015 Aug 5;10(8):e0132382. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132382. PMID: 26244868; PMCID: PMC4526697.
  12. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JP, Al-Shahi Salman R, Chan AW, Glasziou P. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):101-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6. Epub 2014 Jan 8. PMID: 24411643.
  13. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457. PMID: 15161896.
  14. Krzyszczyk P, Acevedo A, Davidoff EJ, Timmins LM, Marrero-Berrios I, Patel M, White C, Lowe C, Sherba JJ, Hartmanshenn C, O’Neill KM, Balter ML, Fritz ZR, Androulakis IP, Schloss RS, Yarmush ML. The growing role of precision and personalized medicine for cancer treatment. Technology (Singap World Sci). 2018 Sep-Dec;6(3-4):79-100. doi: 10.1142/S2339547818300020. Epub 2019 Jan 11. PMID: 30713991; PMCID: PMC6352312.
  15. Brika SKM, Chergui K, Algamdi A, Musa AA, Zouaghi R. E-Learning Research Trends in Higher Education in Light of COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis. Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 3;12:762819. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.762819. PMID: 35308075; PMCID: PMC8929398.