Back

Including both sexes in in vivo research does not necessitate an increase in sample size: a key role for factorial analysis methods

Phillips, B.; Haschler, T.; Karp, N.

2022-09-30 genetics
10.1101/2022.09.29.510061 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In recent years, there has been a strong drive to improve the inclusion of animals of both sex during in vivo research, driven by a need to improve sex representation in fundamental biology and drug development. This has resulted in inclusion mandates by funding bodies and journals, alongside numerous published manuscripts highlighting the issue and providing guidance to scientists. However, progress is slow and blockers to the routine use of both sexes remain. From a statistical and experimental design perspective, concerns include difficulty selecting and conducting an appropriate analysis and the perceived need for a higher sample size to achieve an equivalent level of statistical power. When both sexes are included, analysis errors are frequent, including inappropriate pooling or sex-disaggregation of the data. These mistakes result in a failure to properly account for the variation in the data that arises from sex, and subsequently lead to poor inference regarding the biological impact of sex. The purpose of this manuscript is to address frequently cited blockers and analysis errors, thus providing a practical guide to support scientists in the design of in vivo studies which include both sexes. Primarily, we demonstrate that there is no loss of power to detect treatment effects when splitting the sample size across sexes in most common biological scenarios, providing that the data are analysed appropriately. In the rare situations where power is lost, the benefit of understanding the role of sex outweighs the power considerations. When estimating a generalisable translatable effect, where exploring sex differences are not the primary scientific objective, we recommend splitting the sample size across male and female mice as a standard strategy. We also demonstrate an optimal analysis pipeline for analysing data gathered using both sexes which is designed to help address common analysis errors.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biology of Sex Differences
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 11%
15.8%
3
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 18%
6.5%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 31%
3.4%
5
Biology
45 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.5%
7
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
8
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
9
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.0%
10
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
11
Frontiers in Genetics
230 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
12
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
252 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
Disease Models & Mechanisms
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
14
Reproduction
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
15
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
16
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
17
Genes, Brain and Behavior
30 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
18
General and Comparative Endocrinology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
19
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
20
BMC Biology
265 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
21
Genes
144 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Molecular Ecology
336 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
23
Hormones and Behavior
45 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
233 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
Behavioural Brain Research
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
26
Development
497 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
27
Science of The Total Environment
186 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
28
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
41 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
29
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.6%
30
Journal of Experimental Biology
259 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%