Suppr超能文献

基础生物学研究中对标准的需求日益迫切。

The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research.

作者信息

Freedman Leonard P, Inglese James

机构信息

Global Biological Standards Institute, Washington, DC; and

Division of Pre-clinical Innovation, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.

出版信息

Cancer Res. 2014 Aug 1;74(15):4024-9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0925. Epub 2014 Jul 17.

Abstract

Research advances build upon the validity and reproducibility of previously published data and findings. Yet irreproducibility in basic biologic and preclinical research is pervasive in both academic and commercial settings. Lack of reproducibility has led to invalidated research breakthroughs, retracted articles, and aborted clinical trials. Concerns and requirements for transparent, reproducible, and translatable research are accelerated by the rapid growth of "post-publication peer review," open access publishing, and data sharing that facilitate the identification of irreproducible data/studies; they are magnified by the explosion of high-throughput technologies, genomics, and other data-intensive disciplines. Collectively, these changes and challenges are decreasing the effectiveness of traditional research quality mechanisms and are contributing to unacceptable-and unsustainable-levels of irreproducibility. The global oncology and basic biologic research communities can no longer tolerate or afford widespread irreproducible research. This article discusses (i) how irreproducibility in preclinical research can ultimately be traced to an absence of a unifying life science standards framework, and (ii) makes an urgent case for the expanded development and use of consensus-based standards to both enhance reproducibility and drive innovations in cancer research.

摘要

研究进展建立在先前发表的数据和研究结果的有效性和可重复性之上。然而,基础生物学和临床前研究中的不可重复性在学术和商业环境中都普遍存在。缺乏可重复性导致了无效的研究突破、撤回的文章以及中止的临床试验。“发表后同行评审”、开放获取出版和数据共享的迅速发展加速了对透明、可重复和可转化研究的关注与要求,这些发展有助于识别不可重复的数据/研究;高通量技术、基因组学和其他数据密集型学科的爆炸式增长进一步放大了这些问题。总体而言,这些变化和挑战正在降低传统研究质量机制的有效性,并导致不可接受且不可持续的不可重复性水平。全球肿瘤学和基础生物学研究界再也无法容忍或承受广泛存在的不可重复研究。本文讨论了(i)临床前研究中的不可重复性最终如何可追溯到缺乏统一的生命科学标准框架,以及(ii)迫切主张扩大基于共识的标准的制定和使用,以提高可重复性并推动癌症研究的创新。

相似文献

1
The increasing urgency for standards in basic biologic research.基础生物学研究中对标准的需求日益迫切。
Cancer Res. 2014 Aug 1;74(15):4024-9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0925. Epub 2014 Jul 17.
2
The impact of preclinical irreproducibility on drug development.临床前不可重复性对药物研发的影响。
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Jan;97(1):16-8. doi: 10.1002/cpt.9. Epub 2014 Dec 2.
5
Decatastrophizing research irreproducibility.去灾难化研究不可重复性。
Biochem Pharmacol. 2024 Oct;228:116090. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2024.116090. Epub 2024 Feb 24.
6
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.提高学术出版的透明度和科学性。
J Neurosci Res. 2019 Apr;97(4):377-390. doi: 10.1002/jnr.24340. Epub 2018 Dec 2.
7
Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.提高学术出版的透明度和科学严谨性。
Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2019 Feb;2(1):e1150. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1150. Epub 2018 Dec 2.

引用本文的文献

4
ECBD: European chemical biology database.ECBD:欧洲化学生物学数据库。
Nucleic Acids Res. 2025 Jan 6;53(D1):D1383-D1392. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkae904.

本文引用的文献

1
Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws.拯救美国生物医学研究的系统性缺陷。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 22;111(16):5773-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1404402111. Epub 2014 Apr 14.
2
Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility.政策:NIH 计划提高可重复性。
Nature. 2014 Jan 30;505(7485):612-3. doi: 10.1038/505612a.
5
Rethinking reanalysis.重新思考再分析。
JAMA. 2013 Dec 18;310(23):2499-500. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281337.
8
Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?为什么科学撤稿的数量增加了?
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 8;8(7):e68397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068397. Print 2013.
10
Six red flags for suspect work.可疑工作的六个危险信号。
Nature. 2013 May 23;497(7450):433-4. doi: 10.1038/497433a.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验