Improving the integrity and reproducibility of research that uses antibodies: a technical, data sharing, behavioral and policy challenge
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antibodies are one of the most important reagents used in biomedical and fundamental research, used to identify, and quantify proteins, contribute to knowledge of disease mechanisms, and validate drug targets. Yet many antibodies used in research do not recognize their intended target, or recognize additional molecules, compromising the integrity of research findings and leading to waste of resources, lack of reproducibility, failure of research projects, and delays in drug development. Researchers frequently use antibodies without confirming that they perform as intended in their application of interest. Here we argue that the determinants of end-user antibody choice and use are critical, and under-addressed, behavioral drivers of this problem. This interacts with the batch-to-batch variability of these biological reagents, and the paucity of available characterization data for most antibodies, making it more difficult for researchers to choose high quality reagents and perform necessary validation experiments. The open-science company YCharOS works with major antibody manufacturers and knockout cell line producers to characterize antibodies, identifying high-performing renewable antibodies for many targets in neuroscience. This shows the progress that can be made by stakeholders working together. However, their work so far applies to only a tiny fraction of available antibodies. Where characterization data exists, end-users need help to find and use it appropriately. While progress has been made in the context of technical solutions and antibody characterization, we argue that initiatives to make best practice behaviors by researchers more feasible, easy, and rewarding are needed. Global cooperation and coordination between multiple partners and stakeholders will be crucial to address the technical, policy, behavioral, and open data sharing challenges. We offer potential solutions by describing our Only Good Antibodies initiative, a community of researchers and partner organizations working toward the necessary change. We conclude with an open invitation for stakeholders, including researchers, to join our cause.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it