| Title |
A Multi-site In-depth Evaluation of the Quanterix Simoa from a User’s Perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AAPS Journal, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1208/s12248-017-0156-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Allison Given Chunyk, Alison Joyce, Saloumeh K. Fischer, Mark Dysinger, Alvydas Mikulskis, Andreas Jeromin, Rosemary Lawrence-Henderson, Dana Baker, David Yeung |
| Abstract |
An in-depth evaluation of the Quanterix© Simoa™ platform was undertaken by scientists from the AAPS Emerging Technologies Focus Group to determine the overall performance of the technology as well as provide guidance to future users. In order to test the platform in a non-GLP bioanalytical setting, a cross-site evaluation of the Quanterix IL-6 biomarker kit was performed. Parameters tested during this evaluation included sensitivity, accuracy and precision, and parallelism in human serum from normal individuals. The results demonstrated improved sensitivity compared to the claimed sensitivity of other commercially available IL-6 kits and showed excellent site-to-site reproducibility. Observed issues included difficulties with system reliability and a lack of parallelism and specificity in a subset of samples. Overall, these results demonstrate that while there are challenges to the Simoa platform this technology offers automation capabilities and excellent sensitivity that enhance bioanalysis especially of low-abundance analytes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 24% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 8 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 12% |
| Engineering | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,933,348
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#1,052
of 1,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,818
of 438,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.