Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2022.09.08.507094

Researchers and their experimental models: A pilot survey.

Del Pace, L.·Viviani, L.·Straccia, M.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A significant debate is ongoing on the effectiveness of animal experimentation due to the increasing reports of failure in the translation of results from preclinical animal experiments to human patients. Scientific, ethical, social and economic considerations linked to the use of animals raise concerns in a variety of societal contributors (regulators, policy makers, non-governmental organisations, industry, etc.). The aim of this study was to record researchers voice about their vision on this science evolution, to reconstruct as truthful as possible an image of the reality of health and life science research, by using a key instrument in the hands of the researcher: the experimental models. Hence, we surveyed European-based health and life sciences researchers, to reconstruct and decipher the varying orientations and opinions of this community over these large transformations. In the interest of advancing the public debate and more accurately guide the policy of research, it is important that policy makers, society, scientists and all stakeholders (1) mature as comprehensive as possible an understanding of the researchers perspectives on the selection and establishment of the experimental models, and (2) publicly share research community opinions, regarding the external factors influencing their professional work. Our results highlighted a general homogeneity of answers from the 117 respondents. However some discrepancies on specific key issues and topics were registered in the subgroups. These recorded divergent views might prove useful to research policy makers and regulators to calibrate their agenda and shape the future of the European health and life science research.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Del Pace, L., Viviani, L., Straccia, M.. 2022-09-12. Researchers and their experimental models: A pilot survey.. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.08.507094

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2024

Distinct patterns of bioscience doctoral publication disparities by gender and race/ethnicity

The ability to address the lack of diversity in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math workforce depends on inclusive and equitable training of doctoral students to succeed in the profession. An important metric used to assess equitable training in bioscience doctoral programs is the number of publications that result from a students research. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there are demographic differences in publication rates among all students in a cohort of bioscience Ph.D. programs at the University of California Los Angeles who graduated between 2011 and 2019. Using institutional data and publication database queries, we determined the number of doctoral publications parsed by authorship position, and the timing of the first publication for each student. The resulting dataset was then analyzed for the relationships between publication categories and student gender, race/ethnicity, and citizenship status. We find that female students published significantly fewer total and co-author papers compared to male students, but had the same number of first-author publications. In contrast, students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups had fewer first-author papers compared to students from well-represented groups, but similar numbers of total and co-author publications. Publication of the first doctoral paper occurred later for female versus male, and underrepresented versus well-represented students. These results provide evidence for distinct patterns of doctoral publication disparities by gender and race/ethnicity, offering insights into a key metric of bioscience student success and informing potential strategies to achieve equitable outcomes in bioscience doctoral education.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2024

Creating a biomedical knowledge base by addressing GPT inaccurate responses and benchmarking context

We created GNQA, a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) knowledge base driven by a performant retrieval augmented generation (RAG) with a focus on aging, dementia, Alzheimers and diabetes. We uploaded a corpus of three thousand peer reviewed publications on these topics into the RAG. To address concerns about inaccurate responses and GPT hallucinations, we implemented a context provenance tracking mechanism that enables researchers to validate responses against the original material and to get references to the original papers. To assess the effectiveness of contextual information we collected evaluations and feedback from both domain expert users and citizen scientists on the relevance of GPT responses. A key innovation of our study is automated evaluation by way of a RAG assessment system (RAGAS). RAGAS combines human expert assessment with AI-driven evaluation to measure the effectiveness of RAG systems. When evaluating the responses to their questions, human respondents give a "thumbs-up" 76% of the time. Meanwhile, RAGAS scores 90% on answer relevance on questions posed by experts. And when GPT-generates questions, RAGAS scores 74% on answer relevance. With RAGAS we created a benchmark that can be used to continuously assess the performance of our knowledge base. Full GNQA functionality is embedded in the free GeneNetwork.org web service, an open-source system containing over 25 years of experimental data on model organisms and human. The code developed for this study is published under a free and open-source software license at https://git.genenetwork.org/gn-ai/tree/README.md.

scientific communication and education↗