Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr;19(189):20210821.
doi: 10.1098/rsif.2021.0821. Epub 2022 Apr 6.

Testing the reproducibility and robustness of the cancer biology literature by robot

Affiliations

Testing the reproducibility and robustness of the cancer biology literature by robot

Katherine Roper et al. J R Soc Interface. 2022 Apr.

Abstract

Scientific results should not just be 'repeatable' (replicable in the same laboratory under identical conditions), but also 'reproducible' (replicable in other laboratories under similar conditions). Results should also, if possible, be 'robust' (replicable under a wide range of conditions). The reproducibility and robustness of only a small fraction of published biomedical results has been tested; furthermore, when reproducibility is tested, it is often not found. This situation is termed 'the reproducibility crisis', and it is one the most important issues facing biomedicine. This crisis would be solved if it were possible to automate reproducibility testing. Here, we describe the semi-automated testing for reproducibility and robustness of simple statements (propositions) about cancer cell biology automatically extracted from the literature. From 12 260 papers, we automatically extracted statements predicted to describe experimental results regarding a change of gene expression in response to drug treatment in breast cancer, from these we selected 74 statements of high biomedical interest. To test the reproducibility of these statements, two different teams used the laboratory automation system Eve and two breast cancer cell lines (MCF7 and MDA-MB-231). Statistically significant evidence for repeatability was found for 43 statements, and significant evidence for reproducibility/robustness in 22 statements. In two cases, the automation made serendipitous discoveries. The reproduced/robust knowledge provides significant insight into cancer. We conclude that semi-automated reproducibility testing is currently achievable, that it could be scaled up to generate a substantive source of reliable knowledge and that automation has the potential to mitigate the reproducibility crisis.

Keywords: biology; cancer; literature; reproducibility; robustnesses; testings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare we have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The overall process of testing the reproducibility and robustness of the cancer biology literature by robot. First, text mining is used to extract statements about the effect of drugs on gene expression in breast cancer. Then two different teams semi-automatically tested these statements using two different protocols, and two different cell lines (MCF7 and MDA-MB-231) using the laboratory automation system Eve.

References

    1. Schaffer S, Steven SS. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    1. Ioannidis JPA. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124. (10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ionnidis JPA. 2005. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294, 218-228. (10.1001/jama.294.2.218) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. 2011. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712. (10.1038/nrd3439-c1) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Begley C, Ellis L. 2012. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483, 531-533. (10.1038/483531a) - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources