Journal of Drug Metabolism & Toxicology
Open Access

Reproducing Tests: Recommendations for Designs, Statistical Analysis, and Execution of Toxicological Investigations

Giacomini Zur^{* *}Correspondence: Giacomini Zur, Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Francisco, USA, Email:

Author info »

Description

The challenge of reproducing tests has received a lot of attention. Problems with replication arise for a range of causes ranging from experimental design to laboratory mistakes to inadequate statistical analysis. Here, we go through a number of recommendations for the design, statistical analysis, and execution of toxicological investigations. In general, hypothesisdriven trials with sufficient sample sizes, randomization, and blind data collecting methods can increase replication. Both publicly and privately within the scientific community, science is going through a kind of crisis of faith. Some high-profile cases of fraud have garnered public attention, including the debunked Stimulus-Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency (STAP) method for STEM cells. The practicing scientist sees retractions of articles much too frequently because of shady data and methods. Although it is regrettable, grant review panels, reviewers, editors, and observant readers at least seem to be able to spot fraud. More harmful are the claims that have surfaced in recent years about publications across several fields having poor replication records, with no proof of fraud. According to a recent article in Science, less than half of psychological studies could be repeated. Although it seems reasonable that the "soft sciences" should not replicate well, the biological sciences also perform badly when replication pressure is applied to them. According to reports from the pharmaceutical industry, failure rates for attempts to reproduce published studies to progress medication development are considerably over 50%.

Several factors are probably to blame for the failure to replicate numerous researches. The cause is frequently publication selection bias, which prevents studies that do not show differences from ever being submitted, let alone being published. Even if the experiment is perfectly done, the lack of an impact just does not appear as fascinating. Along the same approach merely publishing research that are significant may be preselecting work slanted towards statistical type I error, detecting differences when none may truly exist. The amount of promising animal trials of disease therapy that fail to convert into viable human medicines may be significantly impacted by publication bias. Also, there is proof of the so-called "outcome bias," which is the tendency of researchers to favour and publish statistically significant results over less significant ones. The parties responsible for reviewing toxicological data, conducting systematic reviews, and creating policy based on that data are very concerned about publication and result bias. It's true that other factors, including skill, may contribute to the inability to duplicate research. Both the initial study's appropriate conduct and its replication need in-depth knowledge in a relatively specific area in the field of molecular biology, which adds to the debate around the topic of replication. As all compounds are poisonous in adequate quantities, our goal in researching toxicants is frequently to distinguish between them. As researchers, we are just interested in where the quantity resides.

Yet, given that so many other professions are struggling with replication, it is crucial that our field take a proactive approach. Since all drugs are poisons at appropriate quantities, it is crucial to get the dosages correct. Readers must have faith in the results since the physiological changes brought on by toxicants are crucial hints for developing drugs and remediation techniques.

The current debate surrounding the Gilles-Eric Seralini publication on the carcinogenicity of genetically modified maize in rats published and subsequently retracted by Food and Chemical Toxicology demonstrates that experimental toxicology can have significant policy ramifications. The retraction's dispute and driving force centred mostly on the statistical analysis, sample size, and experimental design. It is important to take into account the several policy options that have been put out to enhance scientific replication. Some organizations have established standards for studies that should be considered for systematic reviews, which can help scientists in the conduct of their work and increase the likelihood that their studies will be utilized in evidence-based toxicological guidelines. The scientist's own laboratory, at least in the authors' opinion, is the most crucial location to handle the replication issue. Here, we'll go through several ideas and techniques that researchers may actively employ to increase the likelihood that their experimental findings will stand up to examination.