Suppr超能文献

小鼠焦虑行为测试中结果已知后假设的证据。

Evidence of HARKing in mouse behavioural tests of anxiety.

作者信息

Rosso Marianna, Herrera Adrian, Würbel Hanno, Voelkl Bernhard

机构信息

Animal Welfare Division, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 120, Bern 3012, Switzerland.

出版信息

R Soc Open Sci. 2024 Aug 21;11(8):231744. doi: 10.1098/rsos.231744. eCollection 2024 Aug.

Abstract

Over the last decades, behavioural tests in animals, especially rodents, have been a standard screening method to determine the mechanisms of action and efficacy of psychopharmacological compounds. Yet, recently the reproducibility of some of these tests has been questioned. Based on a systematic review of the sensitivity of mouse behavioural tests to anxiolytic drugs, we analysed behavioural outcomes extracted from 206 studies testing the effect of diazepam in either the open-field test or the hole-board test. Surprisingly, we found that both the rationale given for using the test, whether to detect anxiolytic or sedative effects, and the predicted effect of diazepam, anxiolytic or sedative, strongly depended on the reported test results. The most likely explanation for such strong dependency is post hoc reasoning, also called hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing). HARKing can invalidate study outcomes and hampers evidence synthesis by inflating effect sizes. It may also lead researchers into blind alleys, and waste animals, time and resources for inconclusive research.

摘要

在过去几十年中,动物行为测试,尤其是啮齿动物的行为测试,一直是确定精神药理化合物作用机制和疗效的标准筛选方法。然而,最近其中一些测试的可重复性受到了质疑。基于对小鼠行为测试对抗焦虑药物敏感性的系统评价,我们分析了从206项研究中提取的行为结果,这些研究测试了地西泮在旷场试验或洞板试验中的效果。令人惊讶的是,我们发现使用该测试的理由,无论是检测抗焦虑还是镇静作用,以及地西泮的预期效果,抗焦虑或镇静,都强烈依赖于报告的测试结果。这种强烈依赖性最可能的解释是事后推理,也称为结果已知后假设(HARKing)。HARKing会使研究结果无效,并通过夸大效应量来阻碍证据合成。它还可能导致研究人员走入死胡同,浪费动物、时间和资源进行无定论的研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2e7e/11335400/73ee5aa02cd8/rsos.231744.f001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验