Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRoper, Katherine
dc.contributor.authorAbdel-Rehim, A
dc.contributor.authorHubbard, Sonya
dc.contributor.authorCarpenter, Martin
dc.contributor.authorRzhetsky, Andrey
dc.contributor.authorSoldatova, Larisa
dc.contributor.authorKing, Ross D
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-09T11:04:29Z
dc.date.available2022-05-09T11:04:29Z
dc.date.issued2022-04
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the Royal Society, Interface, volume 19, issue 189, page 20210821
dc.identifier.issn1742-5689
dc.identifier.other35382578
dc.identifier.otherPMC8984295
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/336906
dc.description.abstractScientific 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.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherThe Royal Society
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourcenlmid: 101217269
dc.sourceessn: 1742-5662
dc.subjectBiology
dc.subjectCancer
dc.subjectReproducibility
dc.subjectLiterature
dc.subjectRobustnesses
dc.subjectTestings
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectBreast Neoplasms
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.subjectRobotics
dc.subjectAutomation
dc.subjectFemale
dc.titleTesting the reproducibility and robustness of the cancer biology literature by robot.
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2022-05-09T11:04:28Z
prism.publicationNameJ R Soc Interface
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.84325
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1098/rsif.2021.0821
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.contributor.orcidKing, Ross D [0000-0001-7208-4387]
dc.identifier.eissn1742-5662
pubs.funder-project-idEPSRC (EP/W004801/1)
cam.issuedOnline2022-04-06


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International