Introducing quality measures in an academic research consortium: Lessons and recommendation from implementing an ad hoc quality management system for organ model research
Open accessAbstract
Lessons from implementing quality control systems in an academic research consortium to improve Good Scientific Practice and reproducibility.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Each lab will typically perform a qualification of the respective MPS within its own quality system.
“In this field, each lab will typically perform a qualification of the respective MPS within its own quality system (Hulsemann et al., 2022).”
From Recommendations on fit-for-purpose criteria to establish quality management for microphysiological systems and for monitoring their reproducibility (2024) · cites this paper as Hulsemann et al., 2022
In “Implementing quality control in a research consortium” (page unavailable), the paper says each laboratory worked with a specific 3D-organ model and that a consortium QM team developed shared protocols and standards. It does not say that laboratories typically qualify their MPS within their own quality systems; searches for MPS qualification and laboratory-specific validation found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility
Baker, M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/533452a · Cited by 4,209 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Today’s fast-evolving research environment needs effective quality measures to ensure reproducibility and data integrity (Macleod et al , 2014; Begley et al , 2015; Begley & Ioannidis, 2015; Baker, 2016).”
Modeling Development and Disease with Organoids
Clevers, H. (2016) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.082 · Cited by 3,196 · see citing works
Human organoids: model systems for human biology and medicine
Kim, J., Koo, B.-K., & Knoblich, J. A. (2020) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41580-020-0259-3 · Cited by 2,187 · see citing works
Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research
Begley, C. G., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2015) · Circulation Research · doi:10.1161/circresaha.114.303819 · Cited by 1,035 · see citing works
Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste.
Macleod, M. R., Michie, S., Roberts, I., Dirnagl, U., Chalmers, I., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Salman, R. A.-S., Chan, A.-W., & Glasziou, P. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62329-6 · Cited by 1,003 · see citing works
Self-citationOMERO: flexible, model-driven data management for experimental biology
Allan, C., Burel, J.-M., Moore, J., Blackburn, C., Linkert, M., Loynton, S., MacDonald, D., Moore, W. J., Neves, C., Patterson, A., et al. (2012) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1896 · Cited by 653 · see citing works
Against pandemic research exceptionalism
London, A. J., & Kimmelman, J. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abc1731 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
Improving target assessment in biomedical research: the GOT-IT recommendations
Emmerich, C. H., Martinez‐Gamboa, L., Hofmann, M. C. J., Bonin, M., Arbach, O., Schendel, P., Gerlach, B., Hempel, K., Bespalov, A., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/s41573-020-0087-3 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Self-citationRobust research: Institutions must do their part for reproducibility
Begley, C. G., Buchan, A. M., & Dirnagl, U. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/525025a · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Self-citationIntroduction to the EQIPD quality system
Bespalov, A., Bernard, R., Gilis, A., Gerlach, B., Guillén, J., Castagné, V., Lefevre, I. A., Ducrey, F., Monk, L., Bongiovanni, S., et al. (2021) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.63294 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Self-citationA pocket guide to electronic laboratory notebooks in the academic life sciences
Dirnagl, U., & Przesdzing, I. (2016) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.7628.1 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Self-citationDirnagl, U., Kurreck, C., Castaños‐Vélez, E., & Bernard, R. (2018) · The EMBO Reports · doi:10.15252/embr.201847143 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Self-citationCOVID-19 highlights the model dilemma in biomedical research
Adhikary, P. P., Ul Ain, Q., Hocke, A. C., & Hedtrich, S. (2021) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/s41578-021-00305-z · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationSODAR Core: a Django-based framework for scientific data management and analysis web apps
Nieminen, M., Stolpe, O., Schumann, F., et al. (2020) · The Journal of Open Source Software · doi:10.21105/joss.01584 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Improving quality of preclinical academic research through auditing: A feasibility study
Kurreck, C., Castaños‐Vélez, E., Freyer, D., Blumenau, S., Przesdzing, I., Bernard, R., & Dirnagl, U. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240719 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pamies, D., Ekert, J., Zurich, M.-G., Frey, O., Werner, S., Piergiovanni, M., Freedman, B. S., Keong Teo, A. K., Erfurth, H., Reyes, D. R., et al. (2024) · Stem Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2024.03.009 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
“In this field, each lab will typically perform a qualification of the respective MPS within its own quality system (Hulsemann et al., 2022).”
- Authors
- Hülsemann, M., Wiebach, J., Drude, N. I., Kniffert, S., Behm, L., Hönzke, K., Baumgardt, M., Hippenstiel, S., Hocke, A. C., Dirnagl, U., & Tölch, U.
- Affiliations
- Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Hülsemann, Maren
- ORCID
- Venue
- The EMBO Reports
- Published
- 2022-07-25
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e55095-e55095
- ISSN
- 1469-221X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3178
- PMC
- PMC9346478
- OpenAlex
- W4287377969
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- EMBO Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Universitätsbibliothek der FU Berlin Hochschulschriftenstelle u. Dokumentenserver
- Funders
- Berlin University Alliance
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01KX2021, 01KC1901A)
- Charité 3R
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB‐TR 84)
- Einstein Stiftung Berlin (EC3R EZ‐2020‐597‐2)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- quality metrics, quality control system, good scientific practice, reproducibility, research quality assurance
- MeSH terms
- Reproducibility of Results, Quality Indicators, Health Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
