Update random/mosquito_experiment.md

random/mosquito_experiment.md

@@ -1,3 +1,69 @@
+Here’s a structured peer review for your lab experiment on *Culex pipiens* pressure testing. The review is organized by **strengths**, **suggestions for improvement**, and **critical questions** to refine the experimental design.
+
+---
+
+### **Peer Review: Mosquito Pressure Stress Test**
+
+#### **Strengths**  
+1. **Clear Objectives**: The experiment’s focus on rapid 1-second cycles is well-defined, with explicit goals to assess cumulative trauma and survival thresholds.  
+2. **Rigorous Methodology**: Detailed procedural steps (e.g., 0.5s compression/decompression phases) ensure reproducibility. The inclusion of Boyle’s Law calculations adds quantitative rigor.  
+3. **Comprehensive Variables**: Tracking behavioral and physical responses (e.g., wing tears, exoskeleton cracks) provides a holistic view of mosquito stress.  
+4. **Scalable Design**: The tiered approach (10 → 30 cycles) allows adaptive testing based on initial results.  
+
+---
+
+#### **Suggestions for Improvement**  
+1. **Control Group**:  
+   - **Issue**: No control group (e.g., mosquitoes in a static-pressure syringe) is mentioned.  
+   - **Suggestion**: Include controls to distinguish pressure effects from handling stress or confinement.  
+
+2. **Sample Size Justification**:  
+   - **Issue**: Small sample sizes (e.g., 3–5 mosquitoes) may limit statistical power.  
+   - **Suggestion**: Justify *N* with a power analysis or increase replicates to *N* ≥ 10 per condition.  
+
+3. **Pressure Calibration**:  
+   - **Issue**: Rapid compression (0.5s) may not achieve exact target pressures due to human variability.  
+   - **Suggestion**: Use a mechanical actuator or pressure sensor to validate real-time pressure during cycles.  
+
+4. **Ethical Clarity**:  
+   - **Issue**: Ethical considerations (e.g., minimizing suffering) are not addressed.  
+   - **Suggestion**: Cite institutional guidelines for invertebrate research or include euthanasia protocols post-trial.  
+
+5. **Data Granularity**:  
+   - **Issue**: Binary survival metrics (Yes/No) may overlook subtler effects.  
+   - **Suggestion**: Add a graded scale (e.g., "mobility score" from 0 [dead] to 5 [fully active]).  
+
+---
+
+#### **Critical Questions**  
+1. **Mechanism of Trauma**:  
+   - Is damage primarily due to **pressure extremes** (505.611 kPa) or **shear forces** from rapid volume changes? Consider high-speed video to differentiate.  
+
+2. **Cycle Timing**:  
+   - Why 1-second cycles? Would shorter (e.g., 0.5s) or longer (e.g., 2s) cycles reveal different thresholds?  
+
+3. **Recovery Potential**:  
+   - If mosquitoes survive 10 cycles but die at 15, is there a "point of no return"? Include a recovery period test (e.g., 1-hour observation post-cycles).  
+
+4. **Biological Variability**:  
+   - How do age, sex, or nutritional status of mosquitoes affect results? Standardize or document these variables.  
+
+---
+
+#### **Additional Recommendations**  
+- **Equipment**: Use a high-speed camera to capture wing/leg movement during cycles.  
+- **Statistical Analysis**: Plan tests (e.g., Kaplan-Meier survival analysis) early to ensure data compatibility.  
+- **Pilot Data**: Run 1–2 trials to calibrate cycle counts before full experiments.  
+
+---
+
+### **Overall Assessment**  
+This experiment is innovative and methodologically sound but would benefit from **controls**, **larger samples**, and **mechanistic clarity**. With minor refinements, it could robustly quantify pressure-induced trauma in mosquitoes.  
+
+**Rating**: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5) — *Strong foundation with room for optimization*.  
+
+---
+
 ### **Max Compression/Decompression Stress Test: 1-Second Cycle**
 
 #### **Objective**: