Back

Rethinking ratio-based normalization: A guide towards model-based approaches in heart weight analysis

Oestereicher, M. A.; da Silva-Buttkus, P.; Gailus-Durner, V.; Marschall, S.; Fuchs, H.; Hrabe de Angelis, M.; Schneltzer, E.; Spielmann, N.

2025-09-04 physiology
10.1101/2025.09.01.673426 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Heart weight is a critical parameter in cardiology and mouse research, reflecting structural and functional changes linked to cardiac size or hypertrophy and pathophysiological conditions. Normalizing heart weight (HW) to body weight (BW) or tibia length (TL) is a common practice; however, the validity of these ratios has been questioned due to non-proportional relationships between parameters, and this becomes particularly problematic when comparing distinct populations based on such normalized values. Using data from over 25,000 C57BL/6N wildtype mice provided by the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC), we investigated the limitations of ratio-based normalization when comparing different groups, aiming to propose a robust framework for HW analysis. Our findings reveal negligible to weak correlations between HW, BW, and TL across age and sex groups, undermining the validity of ratio-based methods. A modelling study using simulated data demonstrated that ratios could produce misleading results, including reversed or false group differences, when scaling assumptions are violated. Ratios yield accurate and interpretable results only when a truly proportional relationship exists between the variables--specifically, when the regression line passes through the origin--conditions under which ratio-based normalization aligns with outcomes obtained from more robust modelling approaches. These results underscore the superiority of linear models with covariate adjustment and allometric scaling for organ weight analysis, as they more accurately capture biologically relevant scaling relationships. By leveraging the IMPCs large-scale wildtype dataset, we establish the necessity of reassessing normalization practices in quantitative biology traits and propose that ratios should be avoided when comparing normalized values across distinct populations unless key mathematical assumptions are met. This study advances the analytical rigor in phenotyping research, enabling more accurate interpretations of organ mass and function across biological contexts.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
10.1%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 24%
7.2%
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.3%
5
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
6
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.3%
8
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
9
Physiological Reports
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 26%
3.6%
11
The Journal of Physiology
134 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
12
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.2%
15
Disease Models & Mechanisms
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
16
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
17
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.8%
18
American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism
34 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
19
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.8%
20
Journal of Anatomy
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
21
Journal of Cell Science
353 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.7%
23
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.7%
24
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
26
British Journal of Pharmacology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
27
Autism Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
28
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%