Laboratory Animals最新文献

Variability is inherent in most biological systems due to differences among members of the population. Two types of variation are commonly observed in studies: differences among samples and the "error" in estimating a population parameter (e.g. mean) from a sample. While these concepts are fundamentally very different, the associated variation is often expressed using similar notation-an interval that represents a range of values with a lower and upper bound. In this article we discuss how common intervals are used (and misused).

Absence of statistical significance (i.e., p > 0.05) in the results of a frequentist test comparing two samples is often used as evidence of absence of difference, or absence of effect of a treatment, on the measured variable. Such conclusions are often wrong because absence of significance may merely result from a sample size that is too small to reveal an effect. To conclude that there is no meaningful effect of a treatment/condition, it is necessary to use an appropriate statistical approach. For frequentist statistics, a simple tool for this goal is the 'two one-sided t-test,' a form of equivalence test that relies on the a priori definition of a minimal difference considered to be relevant. In other words, the smallest effect size of interest should be established in advance. We present the principles of this test and give examples where it allows correct interpretation of the results of a classical t-test assuming absence of difference. Equivalence tests are also very useful in probing whether certain significant results are also biologically meaningful, because when comparing large samples it is possible to find significant results in both an equivalence test and in a two-sample t-test, assuming no difference as the null hypothesis.

The normality assumption postulates that empirical data derives from a normal (Gaussian) population. It is a pillar of inferential statistics that enables the theorization of probability functions and the computation of p-values thereof. The breach of this assumption may not impose a formal mathematical constraint on the computation of inferential outputs (e.g., p-values) but may make them inoperable and possibly lead to unethical waste of laboratory animals. Various methods, including statistical tests and qualitative visual examination, can reveal incompatibility with normality and the choice of a procedure should not be trivialized. The following minireview will provide a brief overview of diagrammatical methods and statistical tests commonly employed to evaluate congruence with normality. Special attention will be given to the potential pitfalls associated with their application. Normality is an unachievable ideal that practically never accurately describes natural variables, and detrimental consequences of non-normality may be safeguarded by using large samples. Therefore, the very concept of preliminary normality testing is also, arguably provocatively, questioned.

Most classical statistical tests assume data are normally distributed. If this assumption is not met, researchers often turn to non-parametric methods. These methods have some drawbacks, and if no suitable non-parametric test exists, a normal distribution may be used inappropriately instead. A better option is to select a distribution appropriate for the data from dozens available in modern software packages. Selecting a distribution that represents the data generating process is a crucial but overlooked step in analysing data. This paper discusses several alternative distributions and the types of data that they are suitable for.

P-values combined with estimates of effect size are used to assess the importance of experimental results. However, their interpretation can be invalidated by selection bias when testing multiple hypotheses, fitting multiple models or even informally selecting results that seem interesting after observing the data. We offer an introduction to principled uses of p-values (targeted at the non-specialist) and identify questionable practices to be avoided.

The theory and practice of statistics comprises two main schools of thought: frequentist statistics and Bayesian statistics. Frequentist methods are most commonly used to analyze animal-based laboratory data, while Bayesian statistical methods have been implemented less widely and may be relatively unfamiliar to practitioners in experimental science. This paper provides a high-level overview of Bayesian statistics and how they compare with frequentist methods. Using examples in rodent toxicity research, we argue that Bayesian methods have much to offer laboratory animal researchers. We advocate for increased attention to and adoption of Bayesian methods in laboratory animal research. Bayesian statistical theory, methods, software, and education have advanced significantly in the last 30 years, making these tools more accessible than ever.

Animal research often involves experiments in which the effect of several factors on a particular outcome is of scientific interest. Many researchers approach such experiments by varying just one factor at a time. As a consequence, they design and analyze the experiments based on a pairwise comparison between two groups. However, this approach uses unreasonably large numbers of animals and leads to severe limitations in terms of the research questions that can be answered. Factorial designs and analyses offer a more efficient way to perform and assess experiments with multiple factors of interest. We will illustrate the basic principles behind these designs, discussing a simple example with only two factors before suggesting how to design and analyze more complex experiments involving larger numbers of factors based on multiway analysis of variance.

Pilots are small-scale initial experiments that are intended to guide the design of future, larger studies, with a view to increasing their effectiveness. In this statistical primer we highlight five common mistakes that limit the utility of pilot studies and provide practical guidance to avoid such errors and increase their effectiveness. The common thread connecting these mistakes is insufficient planning and over-interpretation of the results. This approach compromises the ultimate goals of the research programme and the future experimental cascade. In support of our view that over-interpretation is an error, we present a simple simulation to demonstrate that pilots will generally generate an inaccurate estimate of the variability of the biological endpoint under study and that frequent under-estimation will lead to inconclusive and unethical subsequent experiments. We argue that well planned pilots are an important part of the research cascade and still need to be implemented to a high standard.