What New Question About Mateo Would You Investigate, and How?
Experimental Design domain · Lesson 20 of 20 · Biomedical Innovations (BI)
Today's goal: Design an original, ethical, well-controlled study to answer a new question about Mateo's cleft using the full experimental-design checklist, and state what converging evidence taught us about how scientists tell isolated from syndromic clefting.
What a finished product looks like
This is a model of the work you should turn in. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your wording should be your own.
Question and hypothesis: Does maternal folic acid supplementation before conception lower the recurrence of CL/P in families who already have one affected child? Hypothesis: it does; if recurrence is no lower in the supplemented group, I am wrong.
Design and why: A randomized controlled trial in high-risk mothers; a case-control design cannot show that the supplement causes lower recurrence, only that the two are associated.
Variables and controls: Change = folic acid dose; measure = recurrence of CL/P in the next pregnancy; comparison group = a lower-dose arm; hold constant = enrollment timing and prenatal care.
Bias defenses: Randomize mothers to dose, blind the outcome assessors who diagnose the newborn, and balance baseline risk across arms.
Outcome and stats: One primary outcome, presence of CL/P at birth; analyze with a risk ratio and 95% CI chosen in advance.
Ethics: IRB approval; mothers give informed consent; no child assent needed (the participants enrolled are the mothers); genuine equipoise holds because the protective dose is not yet established.
Also due today: Swap protocols with another team and write one sentence naming their single weakest step and a fix.
Mateo's cleft is best described as nonsyndromic and multifactorial. Trios found only a small-effect IRF6 risk variant, twin studies found identical twins are often discordant (so genes alone do not decide it), and case-control work showed environment also nudges risk, while the clinical picture shows no syndrome features. Because four different designs all point the same way, the convergence is stronger than any single study, and the honest name is a nonsyndromic, multifactorial cleft lip and palate.
How this was built, step by step
The finished product above did not appear all at once. Here is the path from the question to the turned-in work, so you can follow the same steps.
- 1Start from today's question: What new question about Mateo's is worth investigating, and how would you design a sound, ethical study to answer it?
- 2Work the Model and the Explore questions to reason it out before writing anything.
- 3Pull the specific evidence the product needs from the reading and any database you used.
- 4Write it up in the required format: Take the question you wrote in Explore and build a full study around it. As Principal Investigator, write a one-page mini-protocol covering all eleven steps. At minimum, clearly state: (1) Question and hypothesis, plus what would prove you wrong; (2) Design and why a simpler one would not work; (3) Variables and controls; (4) Bias defenses (randomize, blind, or match); (5) Outcome and the test chosen in advance; (6) Ethics, IRB approval, who consents, whether assent is needed, and whether you have genuine equipoise. Then trade protocols with another team and play peer reviewer: find the one weakest step and suggest a fix.
- 5Check it against the rubric, then submit.
| Criterion | Proficient | Developing | Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete | Every required part of the artifact is present and filled in. | Most parts are present, but one is missing or left blank. | Several parts are missing. |
| Accurate | The science and data are correct and match the evidence. | Mostly correct, with a small factual slip. | Key science or data is wrong. |
| Scientific reasoning (CER) | States a claim, backs it with specific evidence, and explains the reasoning. | Has a claim and evidence, but the reasoning is thin or missing. | Gives an answer with no evidence or reasoning. |
| Professional communication | Clear, organized, and labeled the way a clinician or scientist would write it. | Readable but disorganized or missing labels. | Hard to follow. |
| Submitted | Turned in the right way (Schoology for routine work) and confirmed. | Turned in, but in the wrong place or unconfirmed. | Not turned in. |
- CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "Take the question you wrote in Explore and build a full study around it. As Principal Investigator, write a one-page mini-protocol covering all eleven steps. At minimum, clearly state: (1) Question and hypothesis, plus what would prove you wrong; (2) Design and why a simpler one would not work; (3) Variables and controls; (4) Bias defenses (randomize, blind, or match); (5) Outcome and the test chosen in advance; (6) Ethics, IRB approval, who consents, whether assent is needed, and whether you have genuine equipoise. Then trade protocols with another team and play peer reviewer: find the one weakest step and suggest a fix.".
- AccurateProficient: Every number and claim matches the case evidence.
- Scientific reasoning (CER)Proficient: It names a claim, cites the specific evidence, and explains the reasoning, not just the answer.
- Professional communicationProficient: It is organized and labeled like a real chart note.
- SubmittedProficient: It would be turned in on Schoology and confirmed.
WebXam problem for today's skill
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.