↓ Skip to main content

Modeling error in experimental assays using the bootstrap principle: understanding discrepancies between assays using different dispensing technologies

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Modeling error in experimental assays using the bootstrap principle: understanding discrepancies between assays using different dispensing technologies
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10822-015-9888-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonya M. Hanson, Sean Ekins, John D. Chodera

Abstract

All experimental assay data contains error, but the magnitude, type, and primary origin of this error is often not obvious. Here, we describe a simple set of assay modeling techniques based on the bootstrap principle that allow sources of error and bias to be simulated and propagated into assay results. We demonstrate how deceptively simple operations-such as the creation of a dilution series with a robotic liquid handler-can significantly amplify imprecision and even contribute substantially to bias. To illustrate these techniques, we review an example of how the choice of dispensing technology can impact assay measurements, and show how large contributions to discrepancies between assays can be easily understood and potentially corrected for. These simple modeling techniques-illustrated with an accompanying IPython notebook-can allow modelers to understand the expected error and bias in experimental datasets, and even help experimentalists design assays to more effectively reach accuracy and imprecision goals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 43 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 28%
Researcher 11 23%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Professor 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 15 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Engineering 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 8 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 December 2015.
All research outputs
#4,593,373
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#206
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,051
of 380,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 380,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them