ArticleQuantitative plant biology2025
Ensuring robustness in scientific research, split-root assays as an example case.
Article in Quantitative plant biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific progress relies on reproducibility, replicability, and robustness of research outcomes. After briefly discussing these terms and their significance for reliable scientific discovery, we argue for the importance of investigating robustness of outcomes to experimental protocol variations. We highlight challenges in achieving robust, replicable results in multi-step plant science experiments, using split-root assays in Arabidopsis thaliana as a case study. These experiments are important for unraveling the contributions of local, systemic and long-distance signalling in plant responses and play a central role in nutrient foraging research. The complexity of these experiments allows for extensive variation in protocols. We investigate what variations do or do not result in similar outcomes and provide concrete recommendations for enhancing the replicability and robustness of these and other complex experiments by extending the level of detail in research protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.