Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation
Jonathan Kimmelman, Jeffrey S Mogil, Ulrich Dirnagl, Jonathan Kimmelman, Jeffrey S Mogil, Ulrich Dirnagl
Abstract
Preclinical researchers confront two overarching agendas related to drug development: selecting interventions amid a vast field of candidates, and producing rigorous evidence of clinical promise for a small number of interventions. We suggest that each challenge is best met by two different, complementary modes of investigation. In the first (exploratory investigation), researchers should aim at generating robust pathophysiological theories of disease. In the second (confirmatory investigation), researchers should aim at demonstrating strong and reproducible treatment effects in relevant animal models. Each mode entails different study designs, confronts different validity threats, and supports different kinds of inferences. Research policies should seek to disentangle the two modes and leverage their complementarity. In particular, policies should discourage the common use of exploratory studies to support confirmatory inferences, promote a greater volume of confirmatory investigation, and customize design and reporting guidelines for each mode.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
References
- van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, et al. (2010) Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med 7: e1000245.
- Steward O, Popovich PG, Dietrich WD, Kleitman N (2012) Replication and reproducibility in spinal cord injury research. Exp Neurol 233: 597–605.
- Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, Howells DW, Macleod M (2010) Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 8: e1000344.
- Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, et al. (2012) A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature 490: 187–191.
- Mogil JS, Simmonds K, Simmonds MJ (2009) Pain research from 1975 to 2007: a categorical and bibliometric meta-trend analysis of every Research Paper published in the journal, Pain. Pain 142: 48–58.
- Schmidt S (2009) Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Rev Gen Psychol 13: 90–100.
- Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, et al. (2013) Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14: 365–378.
- Shackleton M, Quintana E, Fearon ER, Morrison SJ (2009) Heterogeneity in cancer: cancer stem cells versus clonal evolution. Cell 138: 822–829.
- Henderson VC, Kimmelman J, Fergusson D, Grimshaw JM, Hackam DG (2013) Threats to Validity in the Design and Conduct of Preclinical Efficacy Studies: A Systematic Review of Guidelines for In Vivo Animal Experiments. PLoS Med 10: e1001489.
- Howells DW, Sena ES, Macleod MR (2014) Bringing rigour to translational medicine. Nat Rev Neurol 10: 37–43.
- Wagenmakers E-J, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, Maas HLJvd, Kievit RA (2012) An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspect Psychol Sci 7: 632–638.
- Willmann R, De Luca A, Benatar M, Grounds M, Dubach J, et al. (2012) Enhancing translation: guidelines for standard pre-clinical experiments in mdx mice. Neuromuscul Disord 22: 43–49.
- Dirnagl U, Hakim A, Macleod M, Fisher M, Howells D, et al. (2013) A concerted appeal for international cooperation in preclinical stroke research. Stroke 44: 1754–1760.
- Kimmelman J, Anderson JA (2012) Should preclinical studies be registered? Nat Biotechnol 30: 488–489.
- Chambers CD (2013) Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex 49: 609–610.
- Experimental Psychology (2014) Instructions to authors. Experimental psychology. Boston: Hogrefe Publishing.
- Hull DL (1988) Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Source: PubMed