MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400224575 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49439-y

Improving laboratory animal genetic reporting: LAG-R guidelines

2024· review· en· W4400224575 on OpenAlexaff
Lydia Teboul, James Amos‐Landgraf, Fernando Benavides, Marie‐Christine Birling, Steve D. M. Brown, Elizabeth C. Bryda, Rosie Bunton-Stasyshyn, Hsian‐Jean Chin, Martina Crispo, Fabien Delerue, Michael Dobbie, Craig L. Franklin, Ernst‐Martin Füchtbauer, Xiang Gao, Christelle Golzio, Rebecca Haffner, Yann Hérault, Martin Hrabě de Angelis, K. C. Kent Lloyd, Terry Magnuson, Lluı́s Montoliu, Stephen A. Murray, Ki‐Hoan Nam, Lauryl M. J. Nutter, Éric Pailhoux, Fernando Pardo‐Manuel de Villena, Kevin A. Peterson, Laura G. Reinholdt, Radislav Sedláček, Je Kyung Seong, Toshihiko Shiroishi, Cynthia L. Smith, Toru Takeo, Jonathon M. Tinsley, Jean-Luc Vilotte, Søren Warming, Bruce Whitelaw, Atsushi Yoshiki, Chi‐Kuang Leo Wang, Jacqueline Marvel, Ana Zarubica, Sara Wells, Jason D. Heaney, Ian Korf, Cathleen Lutz, Andrew J. Kueh, Paul Q. Thomas, Ruth M. Arkell, Graham J. Mann, Guillaume Pavlovic

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsToronto Centre for PhenogenomicsSickKids Foundation
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Science and Technology CouncilAgence Nationale de la RechercheAkademie Věd České RepublikyNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsStandardizationDocumentationReplication (statistics)Computer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Consistency (knowledge bases)Data scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biomedical research community addresses reproducibility challenges in animal studies through standardized nomenclature, improved experimental design, transparent reporting, data sharing, and centralized repositories. The ARRIVE guidelines outline documentation standards for laboratory animals in experiments, but genetic information is often incomplete. To remedy this, we propose the Laboratory Animal Genetic Reporting (LAG-R) framework. LAG-R aims to document animals' genetic makeup in scientific publications, providing essential details for replication and appropriate model use. While verifying complete genetic compositions may be impractical, better reporting and validation efforts enhance reliability of research. LAG-R standardization will bolster reproducibility, peer review, and overall scientific rigor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.438
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207