Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41741228›Full record

ArticleeNeuro2026

Experimental Designs for Preclinical Neuroscience Experiments: Part I-Design Basics.

P S Reynolds

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro, 2026. 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

1 author.

P S ReynoldsUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610 psreynolds201@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7480-6275

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rigorous, statistically grounded experimental design is central to ethical and effective animal research. Foundational principles for statistically based Design of Experiments (DOE) were established over a century ago by Sir Ronald Fisher. They have since been augmented by modern computational tools that now enable researchers to implement designs that maximize scientific information and benefit while minimizing harms. However, many preclinical investigators are unfamiliar with formal DOE methods. Poorly designed experiments followed by inappropriate statistical analyses contribute to poor reproducibility, translational failure, and unnecessary animal use. This first paper in a three-part series introduces neuroscience researchers to the fundamentals of statistically based experimental design as a substitute for traditional two-group comparisons. Key components of a designed experiment are defined, along with the importance of correctly identifying experimental units to avoid pseudo-replication. Fisher's three essential design principles-randomization, replication, and blocking-are presented as nonoptional practices for controlling bias, managing variation, and ensuring valid statistical inferences. Particular emphasis is placed on probability-based random allocation, the use of validated computer-generated randomization plans, and the role of blocking in reducing nuisance variation. By embedding robust design principles early in study planning, researchers can produce reliable, reproducible, and ethically justifiable data. Subsequent papers in the series will expand on methods for controlling unwanted variation through blocking (Part 2) and outline flexible multivariable design strategies (Part 3). Worked examples and R code are included.

Indexed as

3Rsdesign of experimentsrandomizationreplicationreproducibilityvariance minimization

Identifiers

PMID41741228
PMCPMC12935496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.