Bridging statistics and life sciences education for immunologists: Exploring a significantly impactful collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Statistical tests and graphs are an important part of any immunological research publication or presentation. However, not all immunologists have the statistical expertise to choose the best methods to evaluate and represent their experiments, and the formal statistics training required by undergraduate immunology curricula is often quite limited. How can we prepare future immunologists for statistical practice in research? As a collaborative effort between the Department of Statistical Sciences and the Human Biology Program at the University of Toronto, a second-year undergraduate course was developed to integrate statistics instruction with research design to improve the quantitative training of life sciences students. In a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) study conducted within the course, student attitudes and self-efficacies for statistics, as well as their abilities to recognize and handle problems related to statistical practice in life sciences research, were assessed through surveys administered at the beginning and end of the course (n=126). Here, we present our team-teaching model and strategies for promoting meaningful connections between statistics and life sciences research through course design, activities and assessments. We also highlight results from our SoTL study, which revealed that 77% of students felt more confident about choosing the correct statistical procedure, while 74% indicated that the course helped increase their confidence with respect to results interpretation. We hope that insights from this teaching partnership and our SoTL findings will help inform future course offerings to better prepare our students to effectively engage with statistics in immunological 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
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".