Figure 1| Analysis of the reproducibility of published data in 67 inhouse projects. a| This figure illustrates the distribution of projects within the oncology, women’s health and cardiovascular indications that were analysed in this study. b| Several approaches were used to reproduce the published data. Models were either exactly copied, adapted to internal needs (for example, using other cell lines than those published, other assays and so on) or the published data was transferred to models for another indication.‘Not applicable’refers to projects in which general hypotheses could not be verified. c| Relationship of published data to in-house data. The proportion of each of the following outcomes is shown: data were completely in line with published data; the main set was reproducible; some results (including the most relevant hypothesis) were reproducible; or the data showed inconsistencies that led to project termination.‘Not applicable’refers to projects that were almost exclusively based on in-house data, such as gene expression analysis. The number of projects and the percentage of projects within this study (a–c) are indicated. d| A comparison of model usage in the reproducible and irreproducible projects is shown. The respective numbers of projects and the percentages of the groups are indicated.