↓ Skip to main content

On determining the power of digital PCR experiments

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
On determining the power of digital PCR experiments
Published in
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00216-018-1212-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthijs Vynck, Jo Vandesompele, Olivier Thas

Abstract

The experimental design that will be carried out to evaluate a nucleic acid quantification hypothesis determines the cost and feasibility of digital polymerase chain reaction (digital PCR) studies. Experiment design involves the calculation of the number of technical measurement replicates and the determination of the characteristics of those replicates, and this in accordance with the capabilities of the available digital PCR platform. Available digital PCR power analyses suffer from one or more of the following limitations: narrow scope, unrealistic assumptions, no sufficient detail for replication, lack of source code and user-friendly software. Here, we discuss the nature of six parameters that affect the statistical power, i.e., desired effect size, total number of partitions, fraction of positive partitions, number of replicate measurements, between-replicate variance, and significance level. We also show to what extent these parameters affect power, and argue that careful design of experiments is needed to achieve the desired power. A web tool, dPowerCalcR, that allows interactive calculation of statistical power and optimization of the experimental design is available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 22%
Chemistry 4 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#5,260
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,076
of 342,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#78
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 342,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.