standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research
mechanisms↗limitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensesclaim_relationsconcept_edgesIn the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose,” meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1] – [21] . A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22] . It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2] – [14] , [16] – [20] .
phenomenonlimitationslimitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsFailure to describe research methods and to report results appropriately therefore has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications for the entire research process and the reputation of those involved in it. This is particularly true for animal research, one of the most controversial areas of science. The largest and most comprehensive review of published animal research undertaken to date, to our knowledge, has highlighted serious omissions in the way research using animals is reported [5] . The survey, commissioned by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), a UK Government-sponsored scientific organisation, found that only 59% of the 271 randomly chosen articles assessed stated the hypothesis or objective of the study, and the number and characteristics of the animals used (i.e., species/strain, sex, and age/weight). Most of the papers surveyed did not report using randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%) to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods fully described them and presented the results with a measure of precision or variability [5] . These findings are a cause for concern and are consistent with reviews of many research areas, including clinical studies, published in recent years [2] – [22] .
Good Reporting Is Essential for Peer Review and to Inform Future Research
research_questionmechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationssensesclaim_relationsScrutiny by scientific peers has long been the mainstay of “quality control” for the publication process. The way that experiments are reported, in terms of the level of detail of methods and the presentation of key results, is crucial to the peer review process and, indeed, the subsequent utility and validity of the knowledge base that is used to inform future research. The onus is therefore on the research community to ensure that their research articles include all relevant information to allow in-depth critique, and to avoiding duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. Ideally scientific publications should present sufficient information to allow a knowledgeable reader to understand what was done, why, and how, and to assess the biological relevance of the study and the reliability and validity of the findings. There should also be enough information to allow the experiment to be repeated [23] . The problem therefore is how to ensure that all relevant information is included in research publications.
Using Reporting Guidelines Measurably Improves the Quality of Reporting
mechanisms↗limitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensesclaim_relationsconcept_edgesEvidence provided by reviews of published research suggests that many researchers and peer reviewers would benefit from guidance about what information should be provided in a research article. The CONSORT Statement for randomised controlled clinical trials was one of the first guidelines developed in response to this need [24] , [25] . Since publication, an increasing number of leading journals have supported CONSORT as part of their instructions to authors [26] , [27] . As a result, convincing evidence is emerging that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials [28] , [29] .
concepts↗concepts↗Following CONSORT, many other guidelines have been developed—there are currently more than 90 available for reporting different types of health research, most of which have been published in the last ten years (see http://www.equator-network.org and references [30] , [31] ). Guidelines have also been developed to improve the reporting of other specific bioscience research areas including metabolomics and gene expression studies [32] – [37] . Several organisations support the case for improved reporting and recommend the use of reporting guidelines, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the Nuffield Council for Bioethics [38] – [41] .
Improving the Reporting of Animal Experiments—The ARRIVE Guidelines
object_of_studyclaim_typemechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationssensesclaim_relationsconcept_edgesMost bioscience journals currently provide little or no guidance on what information to report when describing animal research [42] – [50] . Our review found that 4% of the 271 journal articles assessed did not report the number of animals used anywhere in the methods or the results sections [5] . Reporting animal numbers is essential so that the biological and statistical significance of the experimental results can be assessed or the data reanalysed, and is also necessary if the experimental methods are to be repeated. Improved reporting of these and other details will maximise the availability and utility of the information gained from every animal and every experiment, preventing unnecessary animal use in the future. To address this, we led an initiative to produce guidelines for reporting animal research. The guidelines, referred to as ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments), have been developed using the CONSORT Statement as their foundation [24] , [25] .
contributionmechanisms↗mechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensesclaim_relationsconcept_edgesThe ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items describing the minimum information that all scientific publications reporting research using animals should include, such as the number and specific characteristics of animals used (including species, strain, sex, and genetic background); details of housing and husbandry; and the experimental, statistical, and analytical methods (including details of methods used to reduce bias such as randomisation and blinding). All the items in the checklist have been included to promote high-quality, comprehensive reporting to allow an accurate critical review of what was done and what was found.
method↗mechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsclaim_relationsConsensus and consultation are the corner-stones of the guideline development process [51] . To maximise their utility, the ARRIVE guidelines have been prepared in consultation with scientists, statisticians, journal editors, and research funders. We convened an expert working group, comprising researchers and statisticians from a range of disciplines, and journal editors from Nature Cell Biology , Science , Laboratory Animals , and the British Journal of Pharmacology (see Acknowledgments). At a one-day meeting in June 2009, the working group agreed the scope and broad content of a draft set of guidelines that were then used as the basis for a wider consultation with the scientific community, involving researchers, and grant holders and representatives of the major bioscience funding bodies including the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and The Royal Society (see Table 1 ). Feedback on the content and wording of the items was incorporated into the final version of the checklist. Further feedback on the content utility of the guidelines is encouraged and sought.
Funding bodies consulted.
mechanisms↗limitationslimitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationssensessensesclaim_relationsThe ARRIVE guidelines (see Table 2 ) can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals, and the inherent principles apply not only to reporting comparative experiments but also to other study designs. Laboratory animal refers to any species of animal undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting. The guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive, nor to standardise or formalise the structure of reporting. Rather they provide a checklist that can be used to guide authors preparing manuscripts for publication, and by those involved in peer review for quality assurance, to ensure completeness and transparency.
Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo experiments: The ARRIVE guidelines.
Improved Reporting Will Maximise the Output of Published Research
mechanisms↗limitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationssensesThese guidelines were developed to maximise the output from research using animals by optimising the information that is provided in publications on the design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments. The need for such guidelines is further illustrated by the systematic reviews of animal research that have been carried out to assess the efficacy of various drugs and interventions in animal models [8] , [9] , [13] , [52] – [55] . Well-designed and -reported animal studies are the essential building blocks from which such a systematic review is constructed. The reviews have found that, in many cases, reporting omissions, in addition to the limitations of the animal models used in the individual studies assessed in the review, are a barrier to reaching any useful conclusion about the efficacy of the drugs and interventions being compared [2] , [3] .
mechanisms↗limitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsclaim_relationsDriving improvements in reporting research using animals will require the collective efforts of authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funding bodies. There is no single simple or rapid solution, but the ARRIVE guidelines provide a practical resource to aid these improvements. The guidelines will be published in several leading bioscience research journals simultaneously [56] – [60] , and publishers have already endorsed the guidelines by including them in their journal Instructions to Authors subsequent to publication. The NC3Rs will continue to work with journal editors to extend the range of journals adopting the guidelines, and with the scientific community to disseminate the guidelines as widely as possible ( http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE ).
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 4 of 4 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | inadequate reporting of animal experiments and the minimum information needed for critical review, synthesis, and repetition | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | how reporting guidance can make published animal research complete, transparent, assessable, reusable, and less wasteful | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | the ARRIVE guidelines, a consensus-developed checklist of twenty minimum reporting items for animal research | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | scientific, ethical, and economic loss caused by incomplete descriptions of animal-study methods and results | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | expert-consensus also in: expert-consensus | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[0] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[1] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[2] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[3] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[4] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[5] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[6] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[7] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[8] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[9] | 0.98 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | sound underlying science can remain unusable when its publication omits relevant information | limitations[0] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the reporting survey covered 271 animal-research articles, so its numerical estimates describe that sampled literature | limitations[1] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | most surveyed papers did not report randomisation or blinding, and many did not fully report statistical methods | limitations[2] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the paper relies on emerging evidence from CONSORT rather than a direct trial of ARRIVE itself | limitations[3] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | ARRIVE specifies minimum information but does not mandate or prescribe the structure of reporting | limitations[4] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | ARRIVE applies broadly across animal bioscience, but the meaning of laboratory animal is confined to experimental laboratory or formal test settings | limitations[5] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | reporting omissions and limitations of animal models can jointly prevent systematic reviews from reaching useful efficacy conclusions | limitations[6] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | improving animal-research reporting has no single simple or rapid solution and requires coordinated stakeholder effort | limitations[7] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | biomedical research also in: biomedical research | concepts[0] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reporting of biomedical research also in: reporting of biomedical research | concepts[1] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | incomplete reporting also in: incomplete reporting | concepts[2] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | limited value also in: limited value | concepts[3] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | poor reporting also in: poor reporting | concepts[4] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | animal research also in: animal research | concepts[5] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | research methods also in: research methods | concepts[6] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | scientific, ethical, and economic implications | concepts[7] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | hypothesis or objective also in: hypothesis or objective | concepts[8] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | number and characteristics of the animals used | concepts[9] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | randomisation also in: randomisation | concepts[10] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | blinding also in: blinding | concepts[11] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | statistical methods also in: statistical methods | concepts[12] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | measure of precision or variability also in: measure of precision or variability | concepts[13] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | peer review process also in: peer review process | concepts[14] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | quality control also in: quality control | concepts[15] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | level of detail of methods also in: level of detail of methods | concepts[16] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | presentation of key results also in: presentation of key results | concepts[17] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | knowledge base also in: knowledge base | concepts[18] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | biological relevance also in: biological relevance | concepts[19] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reliability and validity of the findings | concepts[20] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | experiment to be repeated also in: experiment to be repeated | concepts[21] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reporting guidelines also in: reporting guidelines | concepts[22] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | CONSORT Statement also in: CONSORT Statement | concepts[23] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | randomised controlled clinical trials | concepts[24] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials | concepts[25] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | health research also in: health research | concepts[26] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | bioscience research areas also in: bioscience research areas | concepts[27] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | number of animals used also in: number of animals used | concepts[28] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | biological and statistical significance | concepts[29] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | data reanalysed also in: data reanalysed | concepts[30] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | experimental methods also in: experimental methods | concepts[31] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | availability and utility of the information | concepts[32] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | unnecessary animal use also in: unnecessary animal use | concepts[33] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | guidelines for reporting animal research | concepts[34] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ARRIVE also in: ARRIVE | concepts[35] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments | concepts[36] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | checklist of 20 items also in: checklist of 20 items | concepts[37] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | minimum information also in: minimum information | concepts[38] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | specific characteristics of animals used | concepts[39] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | housing and husbandry also in: housing and husbandry | concepts[40] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | experimental, statistical, and analytical methods | concepts[41] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | high-quality, comprehensive reporting | concepts[42] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | accurate critical review also in: accurate critical review | concepts[43] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Consensus and consultation also in: Consensus and consultation | concepts[44] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | guideline development process also in: guideline development process | concepts[45] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | expert working group also in: expert working group | concepts[46] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | draft set of guidelines also in: draft set of guidelines | concepts[47] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | wider consultation with the scientific community | concepts[48] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | final version of the checklist also in: final version of the checklist | concepts[49] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | laboratory animals also in: laboratory animals | concepts[50] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | comparative experiments also in: comparative experiments | concepts[51] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | other study designs also in: other study designs | concepts[52] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | mandatory or absolutely prescriptive also in: mandatory or absolutely prescriptive | concepts[53] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | structure of reporting also in: structure of reporting | concepts[54] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | quality assurance also in: quality assurance | concepts[55] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | completeness and transparency also in: completeness and transparency | concepts[56] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | output from research using animals also in: output from research using animals | concepts[57] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | design, conduct, and analysis of the experiments | concepts[58] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | systematic reviews of animal research | concepts[59] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Well-designed and -reported animal studies | concepts[60] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | essential building blocks also in: essential building blocks | concepts[61] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reporting omissions also in: reporting omissions | concepts[62] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | limitations of the animal models also in: limitations of the animal models | concepts[63] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | barrier to reaching any useful conclusion | concepts[64] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | collective efforts also in: collective efforts | concepts[65] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | practical resource also in: practical resource | concepts[66] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | journal Instructions to Authors also in: journal Instructions to Authors | concepts[67] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Failure to describe research methods also in: Failure to describe research methods | concepts[68] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Improved reporting also in: Improved reporting | concepts[69] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | bias in animal selection also in: bias in animal selection | concepts[70] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | outcome assessment also in: outcome assessment | concepts[71] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | improvements in reporting research using animals | concepts[72] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | in-depth critique also in: in-depth critique | concepts[73] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | research articles also in: research articles | concepts[74] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| concepts | waste of financial resources also in: waste of financial resources | concepts[75] | 0.99 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | CONSORT Statement → reporting guidelines The CONSORT Statement was one of the first reporting guidelines. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Well-designed and -reported animal studies → systematic reviews of animal research Well-designed and reported animal studies are building blocks from which a systematic review is constructed. | unhoused_relations[1] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | poor reporting → waste of financial resources Poor reporting makes publications unusable and contributes to cumulative research waste. | unhoused_relations[2] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Failure to describe research methods → scientific, ethical, and economic implications Failure to describe methods and results has potential scientific, ethical, and economic implications. | unhoused_relations[3] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | randomisation → bias in animal selection Randomisation is reported as a method used to reduce bias in animal selection. | unhoused_relations[4] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | blinding → outcome assessment Blinding is reported as a method used to reduce bias in outcome assessment. | unhoused_relations[5] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | level of detail of methods → peer review process The detail of methods is crucial to peer review and later use of the knowledge base. | unhoused_relations[6] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | presentation of key results → knowledge base Presentation of key results affects the utility and validity of the knowledge base. | unhoused_relations[7] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | research articles → in-depth critique Research articles should include enough relevant information for in-depth critique. | unhoused_relations[8] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | number of animals used → biological and statistical significance Reporting animal numbers enables assessment of biological and statistical significance. | unhoused_relations[9] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | number of animals used → data reanalysed Reporting animal numbers is necessary for data reanalysis. | unhoused_relations[10] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Improved reporting → availability and utility of the information Improved reporting maximises the availability and utility of information from every animal and experiment. | unhoused_relations[11] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Improved reporting → unnecessary animal use Improved reporting prevents unnecessary animal use in future. | unhoused_relations[12] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | CONSORT Statement → ARRIVE ARRIVE was developed using the CONSORT Statement as its foundation. | unhoused_relations[13] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | minimum information → accurate critical review The twenty-item minimum information set permits accurate critical review of what was done and found. | unhoused_relations[14] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | Consensus and consultation → guideline development process Consensus and consultation are described as the corner-stones of guideline development. | unhoused_relations[15] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | wider consultation with the scientific community → final version of the checklist Feedback from wider consultation was incorporated into the final checklist. | unhoused_relations[16] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | ARRIVE → comparative experiments ARRIVE applies to comparative animal experiments and other study designs. | unhoused_relations[17] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | ARRIVE → mandatory or absolutely prescriptive ARRIVE is not intended to be mandatory or absolutely prescriptive. | unhoused_relations[18] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | ARRIVE → quality assurance Authors and peer reviewers can use the checklist for quality assurance. | unhoused_relations[19] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | reporting omissions → barrier to reaching any useful conclusion Reporting omissions combine with animal-model limitations to block useful efficacy conclusions. | unhoused_relations[20] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | collective efforts → improvements in reporting research using animals Reporting improvement requires collective effort by authors, editors, reviewers, and funders. | unhoused_relations[21] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | ARRIVE → practical resource ARRIVE provides a practical resource to aid reporting improvements. | unhoused_relations[22] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| senses | fit for purpose - containing enough relevant information to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice | senses[0] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| senses | good reporting - sufficient methods and results detail for critique, interpretation, reliability assessment, and repetition | senses[1] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| senses | reporting guidelines - guidance specifying which information belongs in a research article | senses[2] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| senses | ARRIVE - Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments | senses[3] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| senses | minimum information - twenty classes of detail required for comprehensive animal-research reporting | senses[4] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| senses | laboratory animal - any animal species undergoing an experimental procedure in a research laboratory or formal test setting | senses[5] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| senses | quality assurance - peer-review checking for completeness and transparency using the ARRIVE checklist | senses[6] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| senses | essential building blocks - well-designed and well-reported animal studies composing an evidence synthesis | senses[7] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → inadequate biomedical reporting that leaves otherwise sound science unusable note: The opening problem statement. | claim_relations[0] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → complete reporting as a prerequisite for peer review, reuse, validity assessment, and replication note: The stated rationale for reporting detail. | claim_relations[1] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → reporting guidelines as an empirically promising intervention note: The paper cites the emerging CONSORT evidence. | claim_relations[2] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | proposes → the ARRIVE animal-research reporting guidelines note: The paper explicitly leads the guideline initiative. | claim_relations[3] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | defines → a twenty-item minimum-information checklist for animal-research publications note: The central artifact is enumerated and scoped. | claim_relations[4] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → consensus and multidisciplinary consultation in guideline development note: The development process is explicitly justified. | claim_relations[5] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → ARRIVE as guidance rather than a mandatory prescriptive reporting structure note: The scope paragraph expressly limits the guideline. | claim_relations[6] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | recommends → coordinated adoption by authors, editors, reviewers, funders, journals, and the scientific community note: The implementation recommendation is explicit. | claim_relations[7] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | incomplete reporting —causes→ limited value the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: Direct positive production of reduced publication utility. · the relation stated: Incomplete reporting renders many publications of limited value. also in: incomplete reporting · limited value | concept_edges[0] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | CONSORT Statement —causes→ quality and transparency of reports of clinical trials the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: Explicit measured improvement. · the relation stated: Evidence shows that CONSORT improves the quality and transparency of clinical-trial reports. | concept_edges[1] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | ARRIVE —same-as→ Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Explicit referred-to-as naming equivalence. · the relation stated: The animal-research reporting guidelines are referred to as ARRIVE, meaning Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments. | concept_edges[2] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | checklist of 20 items —part-of→ ARRIVE the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Direct consists-of containment. · the relation stated: The ARRIVE guidelines consist of a checklist of 20 items. also in: checklist of 20 items · ARRIVE | concept_edges[3] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.