小鼠焦虑行为测试中 HARKing 的证据。

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Royal Society Open Science Pub Date : 2024-08-21 eCollection Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1098/rsos.231744
Marianna Rosso, Adrian Herrera, Hanno Würbel, Bernhard Voelkl
{"title":"小鼠焦虑行为测试中 HARKing 的证据。","authors":"Marianna Rosso, Adrian Herrera, Hanno Würbel, Bernhard Voelkl","doi":"10.1098/rsos.231744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over the last decades, behavioural tests in animals, especially rodents, have been a standard screening method to determine the mechanisms of action and efficacy of psychopharmacological compounds. Yet, recently the reproducibility of some of these tests has been questioned. Based on a systematic review of the sensitivity of mouse behavioural tests to anxiolytic drugs, we analysed behavioural outcomes extracted from 206 studies testing the effect of diazepam in either the open-field test or the hole-board test. Surprisingly, we found that both the rationale given for using the test, whether to detect anxiolytic or sedative effects, and the predicted effect of diazepam, anxiolytic or sedative, strongly depended on the reported test results. The most likely explanation for such strong dependency is post hoc reasoning, also called hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing). HARKing can invalidate study outcomes and hampers evidence synthesis by inflating effect sizes. It may also lead researchers into blind alleys, and waste animals, time and resources for inconclusive research.</p>","PeriodicalId":21525,"journal":{"name":"Royal Society Open Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11335400/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence of HARKing in mouse behavioural tests of anxiety.\",\"authors\":\"Marianna Rosso, Adrian Herrera, Hanno Würbel, Bernhard Voelkl\",\"doi\":\"10.1098/rsos.231744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Over the last decades, behavioural tests in animals, especially rodents, have been a standard screening method to determine the mechanisms of action and efficacy of psychopharmacological compounds. Yet, recently the reproducibility of some of these tests has been questioned. Based on a systematic review of the sensitivity of mouse behavioural tests to anxiolytic drugs, we analysed behavioural outcomes extracted from 206 studies testing the effect of diazepam in either the open-field test or the hole-board test. Surprisingly, we found that both the rationale given for using the test, whether to detect anxiolytic or sedative effects, and the predicted effect of diazepam, anxiolytic or sedative, strongly depended on the reported test results. The most likely explanation for such strong dependency is post hoc reasoning, also called hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing). HARKing can invalidate study outcomes and hampers evidence synthesis by inflating effect sizes. It may also lead researchers into blind alleys, and waste animals, time and resources for inconclusive research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Royal Society Open Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11335400/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Royal Society Open Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231744\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Society Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231744","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过去几十年来,动物(尤其是啮齿动物)行为试验一直是确定精神药物作用机制和疗效的标准筛选方法。然而,近来其中一些试验的可重复性受到了质疑。基于对小鼠行为测试对抗焦虑药物敏感性的系统性回顾,我们分析了 206 项研究中提取的地西泮在开阔地测试或洞板测试中的行为结果。令人惊讶的是,我们发现无论是使用该测试的理由(是检测抗焦虑作用还是镇静作用),还是地西泮的预测作用(抗焦虑作用还是镇静作用),都在很大程度上取决于所报告的测试结果。造成这种强烈依赖性的最可能的解释是事后推理,也称为已知结果后的假设(HARKing)。HARKing 会使研究结果无效,并通过夸大效应大小来阻碍证据的合成。它还可能将研究人员带入盲区,浪费动物、时间和资源进行无结果的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evidence of HARKing in mouse behavioural tests of anxiety.

Over the last decades, behavioural tests in animals, especially rodents, have been a standard screening method to determine the mechanisms of action and efficacy of psychopharmacological compounds. Yet, recently the reproducibility of some of these tests has been questioned. Based on a systematic review of the sensitivity of mouse behavioural tests to anxiolytic drugs, we analysed behavioural outcomes extracted from 206 studies testing the effect of diazepam in either the open-field test or the hole-board test. Surprisingly, we found that both the rationale given for using the test, whether to detect anxiolytic or sedative effects, and the predicted effect of diazepam, anxiolytic or sedative, strongly depended on the reported test results. The most likely explanation for such strong dependency is post hoc reasoning, also called hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing). HARKing can invalidate study outcomes and hampers evidence synthesis by inflating effect sizes. It may also lead researchers into blind alleys, and waste animals, time and resources for inconclusive research.

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
Royal Society Open Science
Royal Society Open Science Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
508
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review. The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and will allow the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
期刊最新文献
Heliconius butterflies use wide-field landscape features, but not individual local landmarks, during spatial learning. Appreciation of singing and speaking voices is highly idiosyncratic. A first vocal repertoire characterization of long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) in the Mediterranean Sea: a machine learning approach. Beyond bigrams: call sequencing in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) vocal system. Enhancing biodiversity: historical ecology and biogeography of the Santa Catalina Island ground squirrel, Otospermophilus beecheyi nesioticus.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1