Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40414919›Full record

ArticleMolecular autism2025

Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disorders.

Constantinos Eleftheriou, Sarah Giachetti, Raven Hickson, Laura Kamnioti-Dumont, Robert Templaar, Alina Aaltonen, Eleni Tsoukala, Nawon Kim, Lysandra Fryer-Petridis, Chloe Henley and 27 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular autism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

37 authors.

Constantinos EleftheriouSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Sarah Giachetti *Simons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Raven Hickson *Simons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Laura Kamnioti-Dumont *Simons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Robert TemplaarSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alina AaltonenSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Eleni TsoukalaSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Nawon KimSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lysandra Fryer-PetridisSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Chloe HenleySimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ceren ErdemSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Emma WilsonSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Beatriz MaioSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Jingjing YeSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Jessica C PierceSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Kath MazurSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lucia Landa-NavarroSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Nina G PetrovićSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Sarah BendovaSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Hanan WoodsSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Manuela RizziSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Vanesa Salazar-SanchezSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Natasha AnsteySimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Antonios AsiminasCentre for Translational Neuromedicine, University of Copenhagen, København, Denmark.
Shinjini BasuCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Sam A BookerSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Anjanette HarrisSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Sam HeyesSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Adam JacksonCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alex Crocker-BuqueCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Aoife C McMahonEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK.
Sally M TillSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lasani S WijetungeCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
David Ja WyllieSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Catherine M AbbottSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Timothy O'Leary *Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Peter C Kind *Simons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. p.kind@ed.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurately determining the sample size ("N") of a dataset is a key consideration for experimental design. Misidentification of sample size can lead to pseudoreplication, a process of artificially inflating the number of experimental replicates which systematically underestimates variability, overestimates effect sizes and invalidates statistical tests performed on the data. While many journals have adopted stringent requirements with regard to statistical reporting over the last decade, it remains unknown whether such efforts have had a meaningful impact on statistical rigour.

methodsHere, we evaluated the prevalence of this type of statistical error among neuroscience studies involving animal models of Fragile-X Syndrome (FXS) and those using animal models of neurological disorders at large published between 2001 and 2024.

resultsWe found that pseudoreplication was present in the majority of publication, increasing over time despite marked improvements in statistical reporting over the last decade. This trend generalised beyond the FXS literature to rodent studies of neurological disorders at large between 2012 and 2024, suggesting that pseudoreplication remains a widespread issue in the literature. LIMITATIONS: The scope of this study was limited to rodent-model studies of neurological disorders which had the potential for being pseudoreplicated, by allowing repeat observations from individual animals. We did not consider reviews or articles whose experimental design could not allow for pseudoreplication, for example studies which reported only behavioural results, or studies which did not use inferential statistics.

conclusionsThese observations identify an urgent need for better standards in experimental design and increased vigilance for this type of error during peer review. While reporting standards have significantly improved over the past two decades, this alone has not been enough to curb the prevalence of pseudoreplication. We offer suggestions for how this can be remedied as well as quantifying the severity of this particular type of statistical error. Although the examined literature concerns a specific neuroscience-related area of research, the implications of pseudoreplication apply to all fields of empirical research.

Indexed as

Nervous System DiseasesResearch DesignAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalMiceAnimal modelsAutismFragile XPseudoreplicationStatistics

Identifiers

PMID40414919
PMCPMC12105375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.