催产素给药研究的多元元分析。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Heemin Kang , Elisabeth Deilhaug , Kjersti M. Walle , Alina I. Sartorius , Daniel S. Quintana
{"title":"催产素给药研究的多元元分析。","authors":"Heemin Kang ,&nbsp;Elisabeth Deilhaug ,&nbsp;Kjersti M. Walle ,&nbsp;Alina I. Sartorius ,&nbsp;Daniel S. Quintana","doi":"10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Oxytocin administration is a valuable approach for experimentally increasing central oxytocin levels to investigate its impact on brain function and behavior. Despite considerable research interest, results have shown considerable variability across studies. Several meta-analyses have been conducted to help address this inconsistency. However, conducting a meta-analysis requires researchers to make numerous decisions, such as defining inclusion criteria and analytical techniques. In response to this challenge, a ‘multiverse’ approach can be used to simultaneously explore a range of different potential and realistic scenarios by systematically varying these analytical decisions. In this study, we performed a multiverse meta-analysis to investigate how researcher decisions can influence outcomes in meta-analyses of oxytocin administration studies. We systematically varied inclusion criteria, data synthesis models, and methods for correcting publication bias across 530 effect sizes derived from 185 studies, conducting 256 distinct meta-analyses. Our results demonstrate that summary effect estimates can vary considerably depending on meta-analytic decisions (from <em>d</em> = −0.16 to <em>d</em> = 1.45). Notably, meta-analyses with neurotypical populations tended to yield larger effect sizes than non-neurotypical populations, and multiple administrations studies tended to yield larger effect sizes than single administration studies. Furthermore, summary effect estimates can substantially vary according to the applied publication bias correction method. Our findings also demonstrated that the current evidence mostly supports the presence of the effect of oxytocin across domains, regardless of meta-analytic choices, as over 90% of the observed meta-analyses exceeded the range of bootstrapped meta-analyses assuming a null effect. These results warrant future research on how different contexts may impact the robustness of the effects of oxytocin, while underscoring the value of meta-analysis pre-registration to facilitate the transparent evaluation of meta-analyst decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55372,"journal":{"name":"Biological Psychology","volume":"201 ","pages":"Article 109112"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A multiverse meta-analysis of oxytocin administration studies\",\"authors\":\"Heemin Kang ,&nbsp;Elisabeth Deilhaug ,&nbsp;Kjersti M. Walle ,&nbsp;Alina I. Sartorius ,&nbsp;Daniel S. Quintana\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Oxytocin administration is a valuable approach for experimentally increasing central oxytocin levels to investigate its impact on brain function and behavior. Despite considerable research interest, results have shown considerable variability across studies. Several meta-analyses have been conducted to help address this inconsistency. However, conducting a meta-analysis requires researchers to make numerous decisions, such as defining inclusion criteria and analytical techniques. In response to this challenge, a ‘multiverse’ approach can be used to simultaneously explore a range of different potential and realistic scenarios by systematically varying these analytical decisions. In this study, we performed a multiverse meta-analysis to investigate how researcher decisions can influence outcomes in meta-analyses of oxytocin administration studies. We systematically varied inclusion criteria, data synthesis models, and methods for correcting publication bias across 530 effect sizes derived from 185 studies, conducting 256 distinct meta-analyses. Our results demonstrate that summary effect estimates can vary considerably depending on meta-analytic decisions (from <em>d</em> = −0.16 to <em>d</em> = 1.45). Notably, meta-analyses with neurotypical populations tended to yield larger effect sizes than non-neurotypical populations, and multiple administrations studies tended to yield larger effect sizes than single administration studies. Furthermore, summary effect estimates can substantially vary according to the applied publication bias correction method. Our findings also demonstrated that the current evidence mostly supports the presence of the effect of oxytocin across domains, regardless of meta-analytic choices, as over 90% of the observed meta-analyses exceeded the range of bootstrapped meta-analyses assuming a null effect. These results warrant future research on how different contexts may impact the robustness of the effects of oxytocin, while underscoring the value of meta-analysis pre-registration to facilitate the transparent evaluation of meta-analyst decision-making.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55372,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biological Psychology\",\"volume\":\"201 \",\"pages\":\"Article 109112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biological Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051125001309\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051125001309","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过实验增加中枢催产素水平来研究其对脑功能和行为的影响是一种有价值的方法。尽管有相当大的研究兴趣,但研究结果显示出相当大的差异。已经进行了几项元分析来帮助解决这种不一致。然而,进行荟萃分析需要研究人员做出许多决定,例如定义纳入标准和分析技术。为了应对这一挑战,“多元宇宙”方法可以通过系统地改变这些分析决策来同时探索一系列不同的潜在和现实场景。在这项研究中,我们进行了一项多元元分析,以调查研究者的决定如何影响催产素给药研究的元分析结果。我们系统地改变了纳入标准、数据综合模型和纠正发表偏倚的方法,这些方法来自185项研究的530个效应量,进行了256项不同的荟萃分析。我们的研究结果表明,根据元分析的决定,总效应估计可能会有很大的变化(d = -0.16至1.45)。值得注意的是,神经典型人群的荟萃分析往往比非神经典型人群产生更大的效应量,而多次给药研究比单次给药研究产生更大的效应量。此外,根据应用的发表偏倚校正方法,总效应估计可能会有很大差异。我们的研究结果还表明,目前的证据主要支持催产素跨领域影响的存在,而不管meta分析的选择是什么,因为超过90%的观察到的meta分析超出了假设无效效应的自举meta分析的范围。这些结果为未来关于不同背景如何影响催产素效应的稳健性的研究提供了依据,同时强调了元分析预登记的价值,以促进元分析决策的透明评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A multiverse meta-analysis of oxytocin administration studies
Oxytocin administration is a valuable approach for experimentally increasing central oxytocin levels to investigate its impact on brain function and behavior. Despite considerable research interest, results have shown considerable variability across studies. Several meta-analyses have been conducted to help address this inconsistency. However, conducting a meta-analysis requires researchers to make numerous decisions, such as defining inclusion criteria and analytical techniques. In response to this challenge, a ‘multiverse’ approach can be used to simultaneously explore a range of different potential and realistic scenarios by systematically varying these analytical decisions. In this study, we performed a multiverse meta-analysis to investigate how researcher decisions can influence outcomes in meta-analyses of oxytocin administration studies. We systematically varied inclusion criteria, data synthesis models, and methods for correcting publication bias across 530 effect sizes derived from 185 studies, conducting 256 distinct meta-analyses. Our results demonstrate that summary effect estimates can vary considerably depending on meta-analytic decisions (from d = −0.16 to d = 1.45). Notably, meta-analyses with neurotypical populations tended to yield larger effect sizes than non-neurotypical populations, and multiple administrations studies tended to yield larger effect sizes than single administration studies. Furthermore, summary effect estimates can substantially vary according to the applied publication bias correction method. Our findings also demonstrated that the current evidence mostly supports the presence of the effect of oxytocin across domains, regardless of meta-analytic choices, as over 90% of the observed meta-analyses exceeded the range of bootstrapped meta-analyses assuming a null effect. These results warrant future research on how different contexts may impact the robustness of the effects of oxytocin, while underscoring the value of meta-analysis pre-registration to facilitate the transparent evaluation of meta-analyst decision-making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biological Psychology
Biological Psychology 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
11.50%
发文量
146
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Biological Psychology publishes original scientific papers on the biological aspects of psychological states and processes. Biological aspects include electrophysiology and biochemical assessments during psychological experiments as well as biologically induced changes in psychological function. Psychological investigations based on biological theories are also of interest. All aspects of psychological functioning, including psychopathology, are germane. The Journal concentrates on work with human subjects, but may consider work with animal subjects if conceptually related to issues in human biological psychology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信