Cited by 105MicroRNA in disease regulationGene expression and cancer classificationStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Small sample sizes in high-throughput miRNA screens: a common pitfall for the identification of miRNA biomarkers

Open access
Kok, M.G.M., de Ronde, M.W.J., Moerland, P.D., Ruijter, J.M., Creemers, E.E., Pinto-Sietsma, S.J.·2018·Biomolecular Detection and Quantification

Abstract

Since the discovery of microRNAs (miRNAs), circulating miRNAs have been proposed as biomarkers for disease. Consequently, many groups have tried to identify circulating miRNA biomarkers for various types of diseases including cardiovascular disease and cancer. However, the replicability of these experiments has been disappointingly low. In order to identify circulating miRNA candidate biomarkers, in general, first an unbiased high-throughput screen is performed in which a large number of miRNAs is detected and quantified in the circulation. Because these are costly experiments, many of such studies have been performed using a low number of study subjects (small sample size). Due to lack of power in small sample size experiments, true effects are often missed and many of the detected effects are wrong. Therefore, it is important to have a good estimate of the appropriate sample size for a miRNA high-throughput screen. In this review, we discuss the effects of small sample sizes in high-throughput screens for circulating miRNAs. Using data from a miRNA high-throughput experiment on isolated monocytes, we illustrate that the implementation of power calculations in a high-throughput miRNA discovery experiment will avoid unnecessarily large and expensive experiments, while still having enough power to be able to detect clinically important differences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bdq.2017.11.002

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Around 19 samples per group are needed to detect a fold change of 1.5 in microRNA data at 80% power and false discovery rate <10%.

    “Kok et al. (2018) notes, for example, that one may need around 19 samples per group to detect a fold change of 1.5 in microRNA data at 80% power and false discovery rate <10%.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kok, M. G. M., de Ronde, M. W. J., Moerland, P. D., Ruijter, J. M., Creemers, E. E., & Pinto-Sietsma, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Biomolecular Detection and Quantification
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
15
Pages
1-5
ISSN
2214-7535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2776332611
Cited by
105
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5
FWCI
2.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biomolecular Detection and Quantification (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › MicroRNA in disease regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
microRNA biomarkers, circulating microRNAs, small sample size, statistical power, sample size determination, power analysis, replicability, microRNA discovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review