Benefits of a factorial design focusing on inclusion of female and male animals in one experiment.
Animal experimentation
Factorial design
Power
Sex
Journal
Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany)
ISSN: 1432-1440
Titre abrégé: J Mol Med (Berl)
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9504370
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
01
12
2018
accepted:
10
03
2019
revised:
05
02
2019
pubmed:
14
4
2019
medline:
20
6
2020
entrez:
14
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Disease occurrence, clinical manifestations, and outcomes differ between men and women. Yet, women and men are most of the time treated similarly, which is often based on experimental data over-representing one sex. Accounting for persisting sex bias in biomedical research is the misconception that the analysis of sex-specific effects would double sample size and costs. We designed an analysis to test the potential benefits of a factorial study design in the context of a study including male and female animals. We chose a 2 × 2 factorial design approach to study the effect of treatment, sex, and an interaction term of treatment and sex in a hypothetical situation. We calculated the sample sizes required to detect an effect of a given magnitude with sufficient power and under different experimental setups. We demonstrated that the inclusion of both sexes in experimental setups, without testing for sex effects, requires no or few additional animals in our scenarios. These experimental designs still allow for the exploration of sex effects at low cost. In a confirmatory instead of an exploratory design, we observed an increase in total sample sizes by 33%, at most. Since the complexities associated with this mathematical model require statistical expertise, we generated and provide a sample size calculator for planning factorial design experiments. For the inclusion of sex, a factorial design is advisable, and a sex-specific analysis can be performed without excessive additional effort. Our easy-to-use calculation tool provides help in designing studies with both sexes and addresses the current sex bias in preclinical studies. KEY MESSAGES: • Both sexes should be included into animal studies. • Exploratory study of sex effects can be conducted with no or small increase in animal number. • Confirmatory analysis of sex effects requires maximum 33% more animals per study. • Our calculation tool supports the design of studies with both sexes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30980104
doi: 10.1007/s00109-019-01774-0
pii: 10.1007/s00109-019-01774-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
871-877Références
Surgery. 2014 Sep;156(3):508-16
pubmed: 25175501
eNeuro. 2017 Nov 9;4(6):null
pubmed: 29134192
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Jan 17;100(2):124-130
pubmed: 29342062
Circ Res. 2017 Jun 9;120(12):1916-1926
pubmed: 28373349
FASEB J. 2017 Jan;31(1):29-34
pubmed: 27682203
Nature. 2014 May 15;509(7500):282-3
pubmed: 24834516
Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2018 Oct;23:143-149
pubmed: 30560152
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 May 3;1:2
pubmed: 29451543
Lab Anim. 1992 Oct;26(4):256-68
pubmed: 1447904
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Jan;35(3):565-72
pubmed: 20620164
Biol Sex Differ. 2015 Oct 29;6:18
pubmed: 26557976
Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60
pubmed: 19897823
Elife. 2016 Mar 03;5:
pubmed: 26939790
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2014 Sep;57(9):1067-73
pubmed: 25030233
Lab Anim. 1994 Jul;28(3):212-21
pubmed: 7967459
Hypertension. 2016 Nov;68(5):1139-1144
pubmed: 27672030
Laryngoscope. 2019 Mar;129(3):613-618
pubmed: 30408174
mBio. 2017 Nov 14;8(6):
pubmed: 29138308