CLL779 Molecular Biotechnology and In vitro Diagnostics

Grading rubric for paper no.: 2

Name & entry number: Kritika Sharma, 2015CH10104 Date of submission:

04/03/2018

This is an exercise to read and evaluate research papers. Please rate the reading assignment based
on the four categories provided to you. Also write a brief summary and what you liked and
disliked about the research paper in your own words.

Criteria for evaluating on a 1-5 scale (1: lowest, 5: highest)

1. Originality (3)
2. Importance (5)
3. Fundamental depth and insights (3)
4. Technical quality of the data and figures (4)

Brief review (max. 250 words):

Title: The title of the paper is very crisp. It clearly indicates the research topic, methodology
and results.
Abstract: The abstract tells about the major need of the project. It also tells about the brief
design of the final product. It gives idea about various methodology used such as ELISA and
LFA. Scalability aspect is also covered in the abstract that the findings can be expanded to
other diseases too.
Introduction: Global trend is mentioned very well to give a wide picture of the research.
Various previous diagnostics technique such as CT scan/MRI is mentioned to give view of
current solutions and their limitations is also mentioned. The importance of Point of care
(POC) is suitably mentioned making this paper’s research practical. Specific NCDs such as
cardiovascular diseases. Cancer is mentioned making the paper clear about its finding. The
use of exogenous biomarker over endogenous biomarker is justified properly. Although it
mentioned about the complete process but due to various terminology it was difficult to
understand in first reading.
Materials and Methodology: Although this section was not mentioned separately. The more
emphasis was on results obtained. The one thing I liked in the topic was it clearly mentioned
the reasons of using certain material or method over other. For example use of LFA over ELISA
is justified by giving efficiency data for both. Also, the development of paper assay and the
changes incorporated are justified properly with example and diagram. At some point of time,
I feel lots of Jargons are used but may be that’s because I am not familiar about these things.
Results and Discussion: Almost whole of the paper was about results and discussion and the
both the section has more or less same findings. The sections are well explained by the help
of diagrams and example of experiments that was performed on mouse. Overall the paper
reasoned every bit of thing they used in the process.
Conclusion: What I feel the conclusion of the paper is that the method is inexpensive, non-
invasive and does not require trained personnel for some NCD but can be expanded to other
NCD as well as for communicable diseases.

1
2