Android robots are entering human social life. However, human-robot interactions may be complicated by a hypothetical Uncanny Valley (UV) in which imperfect human-likeness provokes dislike. Previous investigations using unnaturally blended images reported inconsistent UV effects. We demonstrate an UV in subjects' explicit ratings of likability for a large, objectively chosen sample of 80 real-world robot faces and a complementary controlled set of edited faces. An "investment game" showed that the UV penetrated even more deeply to influence subjects' implicit decisions concerning robots' social trustworthiness, and that these fundamental social decisions depend on subtle cues of facial expression that are also used to judge humans. Preliminary evidence suggests category confusion may occur in the UV but does not mediate the likability effect. These findings suggest that while classic elements of human social psychology govern human-robot social interaction, robust UV effects pose a formidable android-specific problem.

Replicability is an important feature of scientific research, but aspects of contemporary research culture, such as an emphasis on novelty, can make replicability seem less important than it should be. The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology was set up to provide evidence about the replicability of preclinical research in cancer biology by repeating selected experiments from high-impact papers. A total of 50 experiments from 23 papers were repeated, generating data about the replicability of a total of 158 effects. Most of the original effects were positive effects (136), with the rest being null effects (22). A majority of the original effect sizes were reported as numerical values (117), with the rest being reported as representative images (41). We employed seven methods to assess replicability, and some of these methods were not suitable for all the effects in our sample. One method compared effect sizes: for positive effects, the median effect size in the replications was 85% smaller than the median effect size in the original experiments, and 92% of replication effect sizes were smaller than the original. The other methods were binary – the replication was either a success or a failure – and five of these methods could be used to assess both positive and null effects when effect sizes were reported as numerical values. For positive effects, 40% of replications (39/97) succeeded according to three or more of these five methods, and for null effects 80% of replications (12/15) were successful on this basis; combining positive and null effects, the success rate was 46% (51/112). A successful replication does not definitively confirm an original finding or its theoretical interpretation. Equally, a failure to replicate does not disconfirm a finding, but it does suggest that additional investigation is needed to establish its reliability.

We propose sensitivity analyses for publication bias in meta‐analyses. We consider a publication process such that ‘statistically significant’ results are more likely to be published than negative or “non‐significant” results by an unknown ratio, η. Our proposed methods also accommodate some plausible forms of selection based on a study's standard error. Using inverse probability weighting and robust estimation that accommodates non‐normal population effects, small meta‐analyses, and clustering, we develop sensitivity analyses that enable statements such as ‘For publication bias to shift the observed point estimate to the null, “significant” results would need to be at least 30 fold more likely to be published than negative or “non‐significant” results’. Comparable statements can be made regarding shifting to a chosen non‐null value or shifting the confidence interval. To aid interpretation, we describe empirical benchmarks for plausible values of η across disciplines. We show that a worst‐case meta‐analytic point estimate for maximal publication bias under the selection model can be obtained simply by conducting a standard meta‐analysis of only the negative and ‘non‐significant’ studies; this method sometimes indicates that no amount of such publication bias could ‘explain away’ the results. We illustrate the proposed methods by using real meta‐analyses and provide an R package: PublicationBias.

Psychological stress contributes to numerous diseases and may do so in part through damage to telomeres, protective non-coding segments on the ends of chromosomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between self-reported, perceived psychological stress (PS) and telomere length (TL). We searched 3 databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, and Scopus), completed manual searches of published and unpublished studies, and contacted all study authors to obtain potentially relevant data. Two independent reviewers assessed studies for original research measuring (but not necessarily reporting the correlation between) PS and TL in human subjects. 23 studies met inclusion criteria; 22 (totaling 8948 subjects) could be meta-analyzed. We assessed study quality using modified MINORS criteria. Since not all included studies reported PS-TL correlations, we obtained them via direct calculation from author-provided data (7 studies), contact with authors (14 studies), or extraction from the published article (1 study). We conducted random-effects meta-analysis on our primary outcome, the age-adjusted PS-TL correlation. We investigated potential confounders and moderators (sex, life stress exposure, and PS measure validation) via post hoc subset analyses and meta-regression. Increased PS was associated with a very small decrease in TL (n=8724 total; r=-0.06; 95% CI: -0.10, -0.008; p=0.01; α=0.025), adjusting for age. This relationship was similar between sexes and within studies using validated measures of PS, and marginally (nonsignificantly) stronger among samples recruited for stress exposure (r=-0.13; vs. general samples: b=-0.11; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.01; p=0.05; α=0.013). Publication bias may exist; correcting for its effects attenuated the relationship. Our analysis finds a very small, statistically significant relationship between increased PS (as measured over the past month) and decreased TL that may reflect publication bias, although fully parsing the effects of publication bias from other sample-size correlates is challenging, as discussed. The association may be stronger with known major stressors and is similar in magnitude to that noted between obesity and TL. All included studies used single measures of short-term stress; the literature suggests long-term chronic stress may have a larger cumulative effect. Future research should assess for potential confounders and use longitudinal, multidimensional models of stress.

Background: There remains uncertainty about the impact of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) on women’s health. A systematic, comprehensive assessment of the effects on multiple outcomes is lacking. We conducted an umbrella review to comprehensively summarize evidence on the benefits and harms of MHT across diverse health outcomes.Methods and findings: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases from inception to November 26, 2017, updated on December 17, 2020, to identify systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating effects of MHT, including estrogen-alone therapy (ET) and estrogen plus progestin therapy (EPT), in perimenopausal or postmenopausal women in all countries and settings. All health outcomes in previous systematic reviews were included, including menopausal symptoms, surrogate endpoints, biomarkers, various morbidity outcomes, and mortality. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the updated 16-item AMSTAR 2 instrument. Random-effects robust variance estimation was used to combine effect estimates, and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated whenever possible. We used the term MHT to encompass ET and EPT, and results are presented for MHT for each outcome, unless otherwise indicated. Sixty systematic reviews were included, involving 102 meta-analyses of RCTs and 38 of observational studies, with 102 unique outcomes. The overall quality of included systematic reviews was moderate to poor. In meta-analyses of RCTs, MHT was beneficial for vasomotor symptoms (frequency: 9 trials, 1,104 women, risk ratio [RR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57,p< 0.001; severity: 7 trials, 503 women, RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.50,p= 0.002) and all fracture (30 trials, 43,188 women, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84,p= 0.002, 95% PI 0.58 to 0.87), as well as vaginal atrophy (intravaginal ET), sexual function, vertebral and nonvertebral fracture, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular mortality (ET), and colorectal cancer (EPT), but harmful for stroke (17 trials, 37,272 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29,p= 0.027) and venous thromboembolism (23 trials, 42,292 women, RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.58,p= 0.052, 95% PI 1.03 to 2.99), as well as cardiovascular disease incidence and recurrence, cerebrovascular disease, nonfatal stroke, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder disease requiring surgery, and lung cancer mortality (EPT). In meta-analyses of observational studies, MHT was associated with decreased risks of cataract, glioma, and esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancer, but increased risks of pulmonary embolism, cholelithiasis, asthma, meningioma, and thyroid, breast, and ovarian cancer. ET and EPT had opposite effects for endometrial cancer, endometrial hyperplasia, and Alzheimer disease. The major limitations include the inability to address the varying effects of MHT by type, dose, formulation, duration of use, route of administration, and age of initiation and to take into account the quality of individual studies included in the systematic reviews. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42017083412).Conclusions: MHT has a complex balance of benefits and harms on multiple health outcomes. Some effects differ qualitatively between ET and EPT. The quality of available evidence is only moderate to poor.