Listen to Article
Reproducibility has been a challenge in labs for a long time, and it can often undermine the hard work of researchers trying to build on previously-made discoveries. In order to address this issue, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented standards for data management and sharing, which will ultimately impact the way histotechnologists work.
“Basically investigators who submit NIH grants for funding must include some type of data management sharing plan, which is intended to free anyone to validate and replicate research findings,” explained Luis Chiriboga, PhD, HT(ASCP)QIHC, the Director Ex-Path IHC Laboratory at NYU Langone Hospital. “This may be at a high level in terms of people who are submitting grants, but this is eventually all going to trickle down to the user level, the people who are doing the work and having to maintain their data so it can be reproduced.”
To help histotechs understand the factors that currently make reproducibility difficult, Chiriboga—along with Gayle M. Callis, HTL/HT, MT (ASCP), Owner at G Callis Histology Servicer; Yongfu Wang, Ph.D., Head of Histology at the Stowers Institute for Medical Research; and Elizabeth Chlipala, HTL(ASCP)QIHC, Manager/Owner of Premier Laboratory—published an article in the Journal of Histotechnology. In the NSH Framework for Reporting Materials and Methods for Histology Assays webinar, the researchers discuss these challenges, including the role that photographs play in reproducibility.
How Images Enhance Reproducibility Challenges
Photographs in research articles can really help illustrate the findings of a study and help readers understand the discoveries that have been made. Unfortunately, images can also add to the challenges in reproducibility. For example, the size of the images in an article can make it difficult for researchers who want to replicate the techniques they’re reading about.
“I get very frustrated looking at the images that are produced. They put these tiny little 1 by 1 squares in the manuscript, which are really impossible for you to interpret,” Chiriboga said. “They're really just there to fill up the other parts of the figure. They’re not super helpful, so that's a huge problem in trying to do your due diligence.”
Also, the metadata of images, which are the specific details and information about an image file embedded in the background, can hinder reproducibility. For example, if the type of camera or microscope that were used aren’t outlined in a journal article, readers cannot effectively replicate researchers’ work. A better approach is to provide as much information as possible to make it easier for readers to mimic the methodology of a study. For example, Chlipala describes the process she used when publishing an article in the Journal of Toxicologic Pathology, and how it is more useful for readers.
“In my digital image analysis methods, I included the scanner, the magnification, the acquisition software and the version of that software, and the light source used,” said Chlipala. “I talked about how that instrument was calibrated, when and how I looked at it, and the image analysis software and the versions we were using. I even told what monitor we were using.”
Reproducibility is always a concern in labs, and now with the current NIH guidelines, the extent to which a study is replicable can influence whether or not scientists receive the funding they need for lifesaving research. For more information about factors that can affect reproducibility, what researchers can do to increase the chances that their research can be replicated, and how the Journal of Histotechnology is updating its publication guidelines to handle this challenge, watch the NSH Framework for Reporting Materials and Methods for Histology Assays webinar. #2025#Blog#GeneralAnatomicPathology