ArticleBiometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift2026
A Novel Approach to the Design and Sample Size Planning of Animal Experiments Based on Effect Estimation.
Article in Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal experiments are often purely exploratory, with little to no data available to support the planning phase. Nonetheless, ethical guidelines demand scientifically sound planning, particularly regarding sample size determination based on biometric criteria such as power analysis or precision of effect estimation. The experimental designs are typically complex, involving numerous experimental groups and adaptive steps, which complicates statistical planning. To date, existing statistical approaches for animal experiments have largely ignored this complexity. Despite widespread recognition that effect sizes in animal studies are often biased, poorly replicable, and rarely translate well to clinical trials, little emphasis has been put on this remarkable gap between experimental research and statistical planning. We demonstrate that common design practices in animal experiments introduce substantial error in effect size estimation, even if properly adjusted for inflated type I error rates and false discovery rates. To address this, we propose a simulation-based approach to quantify the estimation error and to classify its magnitude compared to a reference design. We advocate for a two-stage experimental approach-comprising a screening and a confirmation phase-using robust mixture priors for effect size estimation. Our simulation study compares the operating characteristics of various designs and illustrates how optimal designs can be selected. Additionally, we present supporting software tools aimed at facilitating communication with nonstatistical collaborators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.