Quantitative Biology, Discovery Sciences, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
PLoS Biol. 2018 Apr 4;16(4):e2005282. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282. eCollection 2018 Apr.
Biologists determine experimental effects by perturbing biological entities or units. When done appropriately, independent replication of the entity-intervention pair contributes to the sample size (N) and forms the basis of statistical inference. If the wrong entity-intervention pair is chosen, an experiment cannot address the question of interest. We surveyed a random sample of published animal experiments from 2011 to 2016 where interventions were applied to parents and effects examined in the offspring, as regulatory authorities provide clear guidelines on replication with such designs. We found that only 22% of studies (95% CI = 17%-29%) replicated the correct entity-intervention pair and thus made valid statistical inferences. Nearly half of the studies (46%, 95% CI = 38%-53%) had pseudoreplication while 32% (95% CI = 26%-39%) provided insufficient information to make a judgement. Pseudoreplication artificially inflates the sample size, and thus the evidence for a scientific claim, resulting in false positives. We argue that distinguishing between biological units, experimental units, and observational units clarifies where replication should occur, describe the criteria for genuine replication, and provide concrete examples of in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo experimental designs.
生物学家通过干扰生物实体或单位来确定实验效果。当适当地进行时,对实体-干预对的独立重复有助于增加样本量(N),并构成统计推断的基础。如果选择了错误的实体-干预对,实验就无法解决感兴趣的问题。我们调查了 2011 年至 2016 年期间发表的动物实验的随机样本,其中干预措施应用于父母,而在后代中检查效果,因为监管机构对这种设计的复制提供了明确的指导方针。我们发现,只有 22%的研究(95%置信区间= 17%-29%)复制了正确的实体-干预对,从而进行了有效的统计推断。近一半的研究(46%,95%置信区间= 38%-53%)存在伪复制,而 32%(95%置信区间= 26%-39%)提供的信息不足以做出判断。伪复制人为地增加了样本量,从而增加了科学主张的证据,导致假阳性。我们认为,区分生物单位、实验单位和观察单位可以阐明应该在哪里进行复制,描述真正复制的标准,并提供体外、离体和体内实验设计的具体示例。