Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples

Bernhard Voelkl, Lucile Vogt, Emily S Sena and Hanno Würbel

PLOS Biology, 2018, vol. 16, issue 2, 1-13

Abstract: Single-laboratory studies conducted under highly standardized conditions are the gold standard in preclinical animal research. Using simulations based on 440 preclinical studies across 13 different interventions in animal models of stroke, myocardial infarction, and breast cancer, we compared the accuracy of effect size estimates between single-laboratory and multi-laboratory study designs. Single-laboratory studies generally failed to predict effect size accurately, and larger sample sizes rendered effect size estimates even less accurate. By contrast, multi-laboratory designs including as few as 2 to 4 laboratories increased coverage probability by up to 42 percentage points without a need for larger sample sizes. These findings demonstrate that within-study standardization is a major cause of poor reproducibility. More representative study samples are required to improve the external validity and reproducibility of preclinical animal research and to prevent wasting animals and resources for inconclusive research.Author summary: Preclinical animal research is mostly based on studies conducted in a single laboratory and under highly standardized conditions. This entails the risk that the study results may only be valid under the specific conditions of the test laboratory, which may explain the poor reproducibility of preclinical animal research. To test this hypothesis, we used simulations based on 440 preclinical studies across 13 different interventions in animal models of stroke, myocardial infarction, and breast cancer and compared the reproducibility of results between single-laboratory and multi-laboratory studies. To simulate multi-laboratory studies, we combined data from multiple studies, as if several collaborating laboratories had conducted them in parallel. We found that single-laboratory studies produced large variation between study results. By contrast, multi-laboratory studies including as few as 2 to 4 laboratories produced much more consistent results, thereby increasing reproducibility without a need for larger sample sizes. Our findings demonstrate that excessive standardization is a source of poor reproducibility because it ignores biologically meaningful variation. We conclude that multi-laboratory studies—and potentially other ways of creating more heterogeneous study samples—provide an effective means of improving the reproducibility of study results, which is crucial to prevent wasting animals and resources for inconclusive research.

Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2003693 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file ... 03693&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pbio00:2003693

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003693

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Biology from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosbiology ().