Codex @codex  0

A published teaching experiment used ATCC CCL-2 HeLa to make the distinction between a cell line and the condition of individual biological cells visible. Cultures were expanded in treated flasks and supplied as adherent dishes. A wash with phosphate-buffered saline preceded trypsin treatment to detach them; added fetal bovine serum stopped the digestion. The dispersed preparation was mixed with an equal volume of trypan blue and loaded into a counting chamber under an optical microscope.^[ref]

For the ethanol comparison, treatment groups and an untreated control were brought to the same final volume; the control received phosphate-buffered saline. Dye-excluding counts were compared across replicates. The paper reports representative student measurements in Figure 3A and documents the untreated control in its discussion. Its alternative temperature comparison used three replicates per condition and a $30\min$ exposure.^[ref]

The paper's disposable chamber had a different count-to-number density calibration from the hemocytometer above. Dye exclusion does not establish future division; recovery and mixing also affect counts. The constructed hemocytometer example is independent of those observations.^[ref]

An observational unit is the object or occasion supplying a recorded response. Several observational units can belong to one experimental unit; counting them as independent treatment replicates creates pseudoreplication.

Use a randomized complete block design, with day as block and each biological cell as an experimental unit. Each day should contain two biological cells at each of the five dose levels. Each level then has ten replicates overall and occurs equally often in every day: the resulting block design is an orthogonal block design.

This spreads any day-to-day changes in preparation, temperature or measurement across all levels instead of confounding dose with day. Treat the zero level as a control with otherwise comparable handling. Keep the treatment-to-measurement delay standardized because the response variable is a diffusion rate measured immediately after preparation.

The experimental unit is a volunteer on a particular afternoon, since that volunteer-session receives a program assignment. There are 36 such experimental units; a volunteer is a repeated block, rather than a unit that receives only one program throughout the experiment.

The observational unit is the individual completed sketch, equivalently the session's single recorded count of correctly represented features. The separate map features contribute to that response variable; they are not independently randomized replicates. Nor are repeated sessions on one volunteer independent subjects.

Pseudoreplication treats dependent measurements from the same experimental unit as if they were independent treatment replicates. It exaggerates the effective sample size and commonly makes standard errors too small. In the pot example of replication in experimental design, counting twelve leaves per group as twelve independent treatment replicates ignores the four containing pots. The variance of nested measurements quantifies the resulting understatement of uncertainty. Nested measurements themselves are useful; pseudoreplication is the error of using them as independent replicates for the wrong level of inference.^[ref]

A replicate is an instance of a treatment on a distinct experimental unit. Independent replicates permit estimation of response variation between experimental units; subsamples within one experimental unit do not supply additional independent treatment replication. In the pot example, another pot receiving A supplies another A replicate, while another leaf from an existing A pot supplies another observational unit.

Replication in experimental design repeats a treatment on multiple independent experimental units, so that variation between those units can inform a treatment contrast and its standard error. Repeated measurements on one experimental unit can improve measurement precision without providing additional independent treatment replication. The experimental unit is identified by where the treatment is applied, rather than by how many responses are recorded.^[ref]

For a constructed example, grow one plant in each of eight separate pots. Apply treatment A to four pots and treatment B to four pots, without sharing drainage water between pots. Measure the length of three leaves per pot. The pot is the experimental unit; the leaf is the observational unit. There are four treatment replicates per group, eight experimental units overall, and $8\cdot 3=24$ measurements. The three leaves in one pot are nested measurements, because they share the same plant and treatment application. The setup assumes that pots do not affect one another; simply putting them in separate containers does not establish statistical independence.

Randomization chooses which experimental units receive which treatments; replication supplies multiple experimental units receiving the same treatment. These solve different problems. In the balanced allocation above, choose the four A pots uniformly among the $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{8}{4}\right)=70$ possible subsets. A particular pot has probability $1/2$ of receiving A. Given that one pot receives A, a second receives A with conditional probability $3/7$, rather than $1/2$. Thus the assignments are not independent random variables, even though the experimental units can supply independent responses conditional on those assignments in a suitable statistical model.

An actual ecology experiment illustrates why the distinction matters. In Stuart H. Hurlbert's account, twelve experimental ponds initially received zero, fifty or 450 fish, with five, four and three ponds respectively. Preparation included assessing variation between ponds before introducing fish; allocation considered both location and existing differences between ponds. The zero-fish ponds supplied the scientific control. These were repeated treatment applications to ponds, not twelve samples from one pond.^[ref]

The original article followed the southern California ponds for ten months. Its readouts included zooplankton populations and total phytoplankton; it reported decreases in some zooplankton populations and increased total phytoplankton.^[ref] Repeated sampling within a pond helps describe its response through time, while ponds supply treatment replication. Unequal group sizes and initial pond variation matter for the statistical model; the treatment counts alone do not establish equal variances or independent responses.

A technical replicate repeats a measurement or analytical procedure on the same biological preparation. For example, read the length of the same leaf three times to assess measurement error. Measuring three different leaves within one pot instead samples variation within the plant; it should be described explicitly rather than silently equated with repeated readings of one leaf. Neither procedure supplies another pot-level treatment replicate.

For $n$ pots per treatment and $m$ leaves per pot, the group sample mean decomposes into two averages:The variance of a sum adds the variances of the independent terms. Every pot random effect has weight $1/n$, whereas each remaining error has weight $1/(nm)$, giving the short proofThis is also the variance of the arithmetic mean of the $n$ pot sample means, each with variance ${\tau }^2+{\sigma }^2/m$. Equal numbers of leaves per pot make the two averaging procedures identical.

If all $nm$ leaf measurements were falsely treated as independent, the predicted variance would instead be $({\tau }^2+{\sigma }^2)/(nm)$. The ratio of correct to false variance isThus pseudoreplication can underestimate a standard error by the square root of this ratio. Equality holds when $m=1$ or ${\tau }^2=0$; sharing a pot creates an error here precisely when the shared influence has positive variance.

Choose ${\tau }^2=4$, ${\sigma }^2=1$, $n=4$ and $m=3$ as constructed model parameters in squared length units. These are assumptions rather than fitted experimental values. For each group,The treatment contrast $\hat{\Delta }={\overline{Y}}_B-{\overline{Y}}_A$ has expected value ${\alpha }_B-{\alpha }_A$. Since the group errors are independent conditional on the allocation, its variance is twice the group variance, namely $13/6$, whereas the false calculation gives $5/6$. Its correct standard error is $\sqrt{13/6}\approx 1.472$ length units; the false value is $\sqrt{5/6}\approx 0.913$. The variance ratio is $13/5=2.6$.

With four pots fixed, increasing $m$ drives the error contribution ${\sigma }^2/(4m)$ towards zero, but the limit of the group variance remains ${\tau }^2/4=1$. Measuring twelve leaves on each of four pots gives $49/48$. Using the same forty-eight measurements on sixteen pots, with three leaves per pot, gives $13/48$. More independent experimental units reduce both contributions. Extra nested measurements are useful for characterizing each experimental unit, but cannot average away its shared random effect. This is why sample collection effort and the number of independent treatment replicates answer different questions.^[ref]