ArticleScientific reports2026
Rethinking ratio-based normalization towards model-based approaches in heart weight analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart weight (HW) is a critical parameter in cardiology and mouse research, commonly normalized to body weight (BW) or tibia length (TL) to account for size differences. Ratio-based normalization, however, assumes strict proportionality between variables, an assumption that is rarely tested and may bias group comparisons. We analysed HW, BW, and TL measurements from over 25,000 C57BL/6N wildtype mice generated by the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium. Sex- and age-stratified analyses were combined with simulation-based modelling to evaluate empirical scaling relationships and the statistical behaviour of ratio-based normalization. Across all age and sex groups, correlations between HW, BW, and TL were negligible to weak, indicating substantial deviations from proportionality. Simulations demonstrated that ratio-based normalization can generate misleading results, including spurious or reversed group differences, when proportionality assumptions are violated. Ratios were consistent with linear and allometric models only under strictly proportional conditions, characterized by regression lines passing through the origin. Linear models with covariate adjustment and allometric scaling provide more robust and biologically meaningful frameworks for organ weight analysis. Ratio-based normalization should be avoided unless key mathematical assumptions are met.
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.