ArticlePloS one2023
Partitioning and subsampling statistics in compartment-based quantification methods.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The precision of compartment-based quantification methods is subject to multiple effects, of which partitioning and subsampling play a major role. Partitioning is the process of aliquoting the sample liquid and consequently the contained target molecules, whereas subsampling denotes the fact that usually only a portion of a sample is analyzed. In this work, we present a detailed statistical description comprising the effects of partitioning and subsampling on the relative uncertainty of the test result. We show that the state-of-the-art binomial model does not provide accurate results for the level of subsampling present when analyzing the nucleic acid content of single specific cells. Hence, in this work we address partitioning and subsampling effects separately and subsequently combine them to derive the relative uncertainty of a test system and compare it for single cell content analysis and body fluid analysis. In point-of-care test systems the area for partitioning and detection is usually limited, which means that a trade-off between the number of partitions (related to a partitioning uncertainty) and the amount of analyzed volume (related to a subsampling uncertainty) might be inevitable. In case of low target concentration, the subsampling uncertainty is dominant whereas for high target concentration, the partitioning uncertainty increases, and a larger number of partitions is beneficial to minimize the combined uncertainty. We show, that by minimizing the subsampling uncertainty in the test system, the quantification uncertainty of low target concentrations in single cell content analysis is much smaller than in body fluid analysis. In summary, the work provides the methodological basis for a profound statistical evaluation of partitioning and subsampling effects in compartment-based quantification methods and paves the way towards an improved design of future digital quantification devices for highly accurate molecular diagnostic analysis at the point-of-care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.