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

Abstract Background Accurately 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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Constantinos Eleftheriou, Sarah Giachetti, Raven Hickson, Laura Kamnioti-Dumont, Robert Templaar, Alina Aaltonen, Eleni Tsoukala, Nawon Kim, Lysandra Fryer-Petridis, Chloe Henley, Ceren Erdem, Emma Wilson, Beatriz Maio, Jingjing Ye, Jessica C. Pierce, Kath Mazur, Lucia Landa-Navarro, Nina G. Petrović, Sarah Bendova, Hanan Woods, Manuela Rizzi, Vanesa Salazar-Sanchez, Natasha Anstey, Antonios Asiminas, Shinjini Basu, Sam A. Booker, Anjanette Harris, Sam Heyes, Adam Jackson, Alex Crocker-Buque, Aoife C. McMahon, Sally M. Till, Lasani S. Wijetunge, David JA Wyllie, Catherine M. Abbott, Timothy O’Leary, Peter C. Kind
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-05-01
Series:Molecular Autism
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-025-00663-3
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849705273682296832
author Constantinos Eleftheriou
Sarah Giachetti
Raven Hickson
Laura Kamnioti-Dumont
Robert Templaar
Alina Aaltonen
Eleni Tsoukala
Nawon Kim
Lysandra Fryer-Petridis
Chloe Henley
Ceren Erdem
Emma Wilson
Beatriz Maio
Jingjing Ye
Jessica C. Pierce
Kath Mazur
Lucia Landa-Navarro
Nina G. Petrović
Sarah Bendova
Hanan Woods
Manuela Rizzi
Vanesa Salazar-Sanchez
Natasha Anstey
Antonios Asiminas
Shinjini Basu
Sam A. Booker
Anjanette Harris
Sam Heyes
Adam Jackson
Alex Crocker-Buque
Aoife C. McMahon
Sally M. Till
Lasani S. Wijetunge
David JA Wyllie
Catherine M. Abbott
Timothy O’Leary
Peter C. Kind
author_facet Constantinos Eleftheriou
Sarah Giachetti
Raven Hickson
Laura Kamnioti-Dumont
Robert Templaar
Alina Aaltonen
Eleni Tsoukala
Nawon Kim
Lysandra Fryer-Petridis
Chloe Henley
Ceren Erdem
Emma Wilson
Beatriz Maio
Jingjing Ye
Jessica C. Pierce
Kath Mazur
Lucia Landa-Navarro
Nina G. Petrović
Sarah Bendova
Hanan Woods
Manuela Rizzi
Vanesa Salazar-Sanchez
Natasha Anstey
Antonios Asiminas
Shinjini Basu
Sam A. Booker
Anjanette Harris
Sam Heyes
Adam Jackson
Alex Crocker-Buque
Aoife C. McMahon
Sally M. Till
Lasani S. Wijetunge
David JA Wyllie
Catherine M. Abbott
Timothy O’Leary
Peter C. Kind
author_sort Constantinos Eleftheriou
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Accurately 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. Methods Here, 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. Results We 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. Conclusions These 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.
format Article
id doaj-art-cc6766ffc52e49bf883ad5b77e1ced41
institution DOAJ
issn 2040-2392
language English
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series Molecular Autism
spelling doaj-art-cc6766ffc52e49bf883ad5b77e1ced412025-08-20T03:16:31ZengBMCMolecular Autism2040-23922025-05-0116111010.1186/s13229-025-00663-3Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disordersConstantinos Eleftheriou0Sarah Giachetti1Raven Hickson2Laura Kamnioti-Dumont3Robert Templaar4Alina Aaltonen5Eleni Tsoukala6Nawon Kim7Lysandra Fryer-Petridis8Chloe Henley9Ceren Erdem10Emma Wilson11Beatriz Maio12Jingjing Ye13Jessica C. Pierce14Kath Mazur15Lucia Landa-Navarro16Nina G. Petrović17Sarah Bendova18Hanan Woods19Manuela Rizzi20Vanesa Salazar-Sanchez21Natasha Anstey22Antonios Asiminas23Shinjini Basu24Sam A. Booker25Anjanette Harris26Sam Heyes27Adam Jackson28Alex Crocker-Buque29Aoife C. McMahon30Sally M. Till31Lasani S. Wijetunge32David JA Wyllie33Catherine M. Abbott34Timothy O’Leary35Peter C. Kind36Simons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghCentre for Translational Neuromedicine, University of CopenhagenCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, University of EdinburghCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, University of EdinburghEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics InstituteSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghCentre for Discovery Brain Sciences, Deanery of Biomedical Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghDepartment of Engineering, University of CambridgeSimons Initiative for the Developing Brain, University of EdinburghAbstract Background Accurately 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. Methods Here, 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. Results We 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. Conclusions These 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.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-025-00663-3AutismPseudoreplicationStatisticsAnimal modelsFragile X
spellingShingle Constantinos Eleftheriou
Sarah Giachetti
Raven Hickson
Laura Kamnioti-Dumont
Robert Templaar
Alina Aaltonen
Eleni Tsoukala
Nawon Kim
Lysandra Fryer-Petridis
Chloe Henley
Ceren Erdem
Emma Wilson
Beatriz Maio
Jingjing Ye
Jessica C. Pierce
Kath Mazur
Lucia Landa-Navarro
Nina G. Petrović
Sarah Bendova
Hanan Woods
Manuela Rizzi
Vanesa Salazar-Sanchez
Natasha Anstey
Antonios Asiminas
Shinjini Basu
Sam A. Booker
Anjanette Harris
Sam Heyes
Adam Jackson
Alex Crocker-Buque
Aoife C. McMahon
Sally M. Till
Lasani S. Wijetunge
David JA Wyllie
Catherine M. Abbott
Timothy O’Leary
Peter C. Kind
Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disorders
Molecular Autism
Autism
Pseudoreplication
Statistics
Animal models
Fragile X
title Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disorders
title_full Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disorders
title_fullStr Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disorders
title_full_unstemmed Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disorders
title_short Better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour: lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse-model studies of neurological disorders
title_sort better statistical reporting does not lead to statistical rigour lessons from two decades of pseudoreplication in mouse model studies of neurological disorders
topic Autism
Pseudoreplication
Statistics
Animal models
Fragile X
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-025-00663-3
work_keys_str_mv AT constantinoseleftheriou betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT sarahgiachetti betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT ravenhickson betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT laurakamniotidumont betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT roberttemplaar betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT alinaaaltonen betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT elenitsoukala betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT nawonkim betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT lysandrafryerpetridis betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT chloehenley betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT cerenerdem betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT emmawilson betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT beatrizmaio betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT jingjingye betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT jessicacpierce betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT kathmazur betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT lucialandanavarro betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT ninagpetrovic betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT sarahbendova betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT hananwoods betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT manuelarizzi betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT vanesasalazarsanchez betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT natashaanstey betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT antoniosasiminas betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT shinjinibasu betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT samabooker betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT anjanetteharris betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT samheyes betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT adamjackson betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT alexcrockerbuque betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT aoifecmcmahon betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT sallymtill betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT lasaniswijetunge betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT davidjawyllie betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT catherinemabbott betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT timothyoleary betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders
AT peterckind betterstatisticalreportingdoesnotleadtostatisticalrigourlessonsfromtwodecadesofpseudoreplicationinmousemodelstudiesofneurologicaldisorders