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

被引:0
作者
Wise, L. David
机构
[1] Independent Teratologist, Retired, Philadelphia, PA
来源
BIRTH DEFECTS RESEARCH | 2025年 / 117卷 / 03期
关键词
EFDT study; fetal weight; maternal weight; rat; reliability; replicability;
D O I
10.1002/bdr2.2461
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
Catlin N., Waidyanatha S., Mylchreest E., Et al., Embryo-Fetal Development Studies With the Dietary Supplement Vinpocetine in the Rat and Rabbit, Birth Defects Research, 110, 10, pp. 883-896, (2018)
[2]  
“Title 21, Volume 1, Part 58 Good Laboratory Practice for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies.”
[3]  
Crabbe J.C., Wahlsten D., Dudek B.C., Genetics of Mouse Behavior: Interactions With Laboratory Environment, Science, 284, pp. 1670-1672, (1999)
[4]  
Drude N.I., Martinez Gamboa L., Danziger M., Dirnagl U., Toelch U., Improving Preclinical Studies Through Replications, eLife, 10, (2021)
[5]  
Fidler F., Wilcox J., Reproducibility of Scientific Results, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2018)
[6]  
Frommlet F., Heinze G., Experimental Replications in Animal Trials, Laboratory Animals, 55, 1, pp. 65-75, (2021)
[7]  
Goodman S.N., A Comment on Replication, p-Values and Evidence, Statistics in Medicine, 11, 7, pp. 875-879, (1992)
[8]  
“ICH Harmonised Guideline: Detection of Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity for Human Pharmaceuticals S5(R3).”, (2020)
[9]  
Ioannidis J.P.A., The Reproducibility Wars: Successful, Unsuccessful, Uninterpretable, Exact, Conceptual, Triangulated, Contested Replication, Clinical Chemistry, 63, 5, pp. 943-945, (2017)
[10]  
Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, (2019)