Embrace heterogeneity to improve reproducibility: A perspective from meta-analysis of variation in preclinical research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The reproducibility of research results has been a cause of increasing concern to the scientific community. The long-held belief that experimental standardization begets reproducibility has also been recently challenged, with the observation that the reduction of variability within studies can lead to idiosyncratic, lab-specific results that are irreproducible. An alternative approach is to, instead, deliberately introduce heterogeneity; known as “heterogenization” of experimental design. Here, we explore a novel perspective in the heterogenization program in a meta-analysis of variability in observed phenotypic outcomes in both control and experimental animal models of ischaemic stroke. First, by quantifying inter-individual variability across control groups we illustrate that the samount of heterogeneity in disease-state (infarct volume) differs according to methodological approach, for example, in disease-induction methods and disease models. We argue that such methods may improve reproducibility by creating diverse and representative distribution of baseline disease-state in the reference group, against which treatment efficacy is assessed. Second, we illustrate how meta-analysis can be used to simultaneously assess efficacy and stability (i.e., mean effect and among-individual variability). We identify treatments that have efficacy and are generalizable to the population level (i.e. low inter-individual variability), as well as those where there is high inter-individual variability in response; for these latter treatments translation to a clinical setting may require nuance. We argue that by embracing rather than seeking to minimise variability in phenotypic outcomes, we can motivate the shift towards heterogenization and improve both the reproducibility and generalizability of preclinical research.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.366 | 0.508 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".