MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987736646 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.119.026564

Journal Initiatives to Enhance Preclinical Research: Analyses of <i>Stroke, Nature Medicine, Science Translational Medicine</i>

2019· review· en· W2987736646 on OpenAlexafffund
F. Daniel Ramirez, Richard G. Jung, Pouya Motazedian, Dylan Perry‐Nguyen, Pietro Di Santo, Zachary MacDonald, Aisling A. Clancy, Alisha Labinaz, Steven Promislow, Trevor Simard, Steeve Provencher, Sébastien Bonnet, Ian D. Graham, George A. Wells, Benjamin Hibbert

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversity of CalgaryUniversité LavalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBlindingMedicineChecklistPsychological interventionClinical study designAlternative medicineClinical trialResearch designSample size determinationStroke (engine)MEDLINERandomizationTranslational researchFamily medicineIntervention (counseling)Translational medicinePathologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose— Preclinical research using animals often informs clinical trials. However, its value is dependent on its scientific validity and reproducibility, which are, in turn, dependent on rigorous study design and reporting. In 2011, Stroke introduced a Basic Science Checklist to enhance the reporting and methodology of its preclinical studies. Except for Nature and Science journals, few others have implemented similar initiatives. We sought to estimate the impact of these journal interventions on the quality of their published reports. Methods— All articles published in Stroke , Nature Medicine , and Science Translational Medicine over 9 to 18 years and in 2 control journals without analogous interventions over a corresponding 11.5 years were reviewed to identify reports of experiments in nonhuman mammals with proposed clinical relevance. The effect of journal interventions on the reporting and use of key study design elements was estimated via interrupted time-series analyses. Results— Of 33 009 articles screened, 4162 studies met inclusion criteria. In the 3.5 to 12 years preceding each journal’s intervention, the proportions of studies reporting and using key study design elements were stable except for blinding in Stroke and randomization in Science Translational Medicine , which were both increasing. Post-intervention, abrupt and often marked increases were seen in the reporting of randomization status (level change: +17% to +44%, P ≤0.005), blinding (level change: +20% to +40%, P ≤0.008), and sample size estimation (level change: 0% to +40%, P ≤0.002 in 2 journals). Significant but more modest improvements in the use of these study design elements were also observed. These improvements were not seen in control journals. Conclusions— Journal interventions such as Stroke ’s author submission checklist can meaningfully improve the quality of published preclinical research and should be considered to enhance study transparency and design. However, such interventions are alone insufficient to fully address widespread shortcomings in preclinical research practices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.672
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.023 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207