Subdivided Historical Data to Assess Replicability of the Rat Embryo-Fetal Developmental Toxicity Study

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
L. David Wise
{"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 &lt; 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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Birth Defects Research
Birth Defects Research Medicine-Embryology
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
153
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信