{"title":"Subdivided Historical Data to Assess Replicability of the Rat Embryo-Fetal Developmental Toxicity Study","authors":"L. David Wise","doi":"10.1002/bdr2.2461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>A key aspect of scientific reliability includes replicability, that is, obtaining consistent results when an experiment is repeated. In embryo-fetal developmental toxicity (EFDT) studies, replicability can be assessed using in vitro models, targeted in vivo studies, and/or the second species study. This work assesses the replicability of whole-animal studies using historic rat data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Data for two endpoints from five full studies were downloaded from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) website. Each full group was divided into two replicate sets (based on odd/even and top/bottom animal order) to evaluate within-study replicability. Analyses included summary statistics, scatter plots, a modified Levene's test for homogeneity of variances, and Cohen's <i>d</i> to assess effect sizes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Replicate means deviated from the original study by only 0.4%–3.7% and differed by ≤ 7% between replicates (with differences < 5% in 87% of groups). Coefficients of variation (CV%) were generally consistent across subgroups, with few above 10%. Variance testing revealed significant differences in two of the five studies, and one study exhibited opposite fetal weight effects in the odd/even subgroup only. Evaluations of adjusted maternal weight gain were comparable across subgroups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The observed 5%–7% differences between these idealized replicates may represent the lower bound for acceptable variability when merging replicate data sets. This work lays the groundwork for more robust evaluations of replicability in EFDT studies and may inform future regulatory guidance.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":9121,"journal":{"name":"Birth Defects Research","volume":"117 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth Defects Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdr2.2461","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
A key aspect of scientific reliability includes replicability, that is, obtaining consistent results when an experiment is repeated. In embryo-fetal developmental toxicity (EFDT) studies, replicability can be assessed using in vitro models, targeted in vivo studies, and/or the second species study. This work assesses the replicability of whole-animal studies using historic rat data.
Methods
Data for two endpoints from five full studies were downloaded from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) website. Each full group was divided into two replicate sets (based on odd/even and top/bottom animal order) to evaluate within-study replicability. Analyses included summary statistics, scatter plots, a modified Levene's test for homogeneity of variances, and Cohen's d to assess effect sizes.
Results
Replicate means deviated from the original study by only 0.4%–3.7% and differed by ≤ 7% between replicates (with differences < 5% in 87% of groups). Coefficients of variation (CV%) were generally consistent across subgroups, with few above 10%. Variance testing revealed significant differences in two of the five studies, and one study exhibited opposite fetal weight effects in the odd/even subgroup only. Evaluations of adjusted maternal weight gain were comparable across subgroups.
Conclusions
The observed 5%–7% differences between these idealized replicates may represent the lower bound for acceptable variability when merging replicate data sets. This work lays the groundwork for more robust evaluations of replicability in EFDT studies and may inform future regulatory guidance.
期刊介绍:
The journal Birth Defects Research publishes original research and reviews in areas related to the etiology of adverse developmental and reproductive outcome. In particular the journal is devoted to the publication of original scientific research that contributes to the understanding of the biology of embryonic development and the prenatal causative factors and mechanisms leading to adverse pregnancy outcomes, namely structural and functional birth defects, pregnancy loss, postnatal functional defects in the human population, and to the identification of prenatal factors and biological mechanisms that reduce these risks.
Adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes may have genetic, environmental, nutritional or epigenetic causes. Accordingly, the journal Birth Defects Research takes an integrated, multidisciplinary approach in its organization and publication strategy. The journal Birth Defects Research contains separate sections for clinical and molecular teratology, developmental and reproductive toxicology, and reviews in developmental biology to acknowledge and accommodate the integrative nature of research in this field. Each section has a dedicated editor who is a leader in his/her field and who has full editorial authority in his/her area.