MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1606084391 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002151

Applying the ARRIVE Guidelines to an In Vivo Database

2015· article· en· W1606084391 on OpenAlexafffund
Natasha A. Karp, Hugh W. Morgan, Andrew Blake, Natalja Kurbatova, Damian Smedley, Julius O.B. Jacobsen, Richard Mott, Vivek Iyer, Peter Matthews, David Melvin, Sara Wells, Ann M. Flenniken, Hiroshi Masuya, Shigeharu Wakana, Jacqueline K. White, K. C. Kent Lloyd, Corey Reynolds, Richard Paylor, David B. West, Karen L. Svenson, Elissa J. Chesler, Martin Hrabě de Angelis, Glauco P. Tocchini‐Valentini, Tania Sorg, Yann Hérault, Helen Parkinson, Ann‐Marie Mallon, Steve D. M. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsToronto Centre for PhenogenomicsMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Bioscience Database CenterRIKENJapan Science and Technology AgencyNational Institutes of HealthCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungUniversité de StrasbourgInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyCHIST-ERANational Human Genome Research InstituteWellcome TrustAgence Nationale de la RecherchePHENOMINEuropean CommissionINFRAFRONTIERGenome Canada
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)BiologyContext (archaeology)Resource (disambiguation)Data scienceBioinformaticsComputational biologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines were developed to address the lack of reproducibility in biomedical animal studies and improve the communication of research findings. While intended to guide the preparation of peer-reviewed manuscripts, the principles of transparent reporting are also fundamental for in vivo databases. Here, we describe the benefits and challenges of applying the guidelines for the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC), whose goal is to produce and phenotype 20,000 knockout mouse strains in a reproducible manner across ten research centres. In addition to ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the IMPC, the solutions to the challenges of applying the ARRIVE guidelines in the context of IMPC will provide a resource to help guide similar initiatives in the future.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.229
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.222
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2290.222
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0120.008
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.028

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.575
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.085 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207