This coursework is based around undertaking and interpreting enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), which is a technique to measure protein concentrations. As part of this coursework, you will undertake an ELISA experiment to measure the presence of a protein biomarker in patient samples, interpret the results, and evaluate this in the context of the latest science and evidence around the disease, and present your research in a report.
The report will be split into two main sections, both of which you will be assessed on:
Part 1: Lab Report – this will consist of the results, data analysis, and conclusion sections detailing the experiment and analysis you have undertaken.
Part 2: Executive Summary – taking into consideration the results you have discussed in Part 1, you will write an Executive Summary detailing your recommendations for the patients. The Summary will have to be aimed at either a healthcare professional or the patient/carer – you will be randomly allocated one of these group.
This coursework aligns with the module learning outcomes, particularly:
1. Analyse the validity, relevance, and accuracy of published research in relation to biomarkers and biopharmaceuticals.
2. Explain the relevance and usefulness of biomarkers in the clinical context to relevant audiences.
3. Demonstrate an understanding of how biomarkers can inform diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making.
Overall, this piece of coursework accounts for 30% of the total module assessment mark for PHAR3803.
The weighting for the two aspects of this coursework are:
Part 1: Lab Report – 50% of the coursework mark; split between the introduction, results, and conclusion.
Part 2: Executive Summary – 50% of the coursework mark
The following schedule summarises the support sessions that will guide you through the coursework including recommendations of what you will need to do:
In addition to resources about data analysis and writing the Lab Report and Executive Summary, which will be uploaded onto LearningZone, the following sessions will guide you through the process.
Understanding ELISAs Workshop (Wa/01-04): During this workshop, you will be given details of some patients – you will work in groups to design an ELISA protocol to measure a protein biomarker present in their serum samples. As a class, you will discuss your protocol to come up with a consensus on your method.
Lab Practicals (P1c/01-06): During these practicals, you will use the method you have designed in the Wa workshops to undertake the ELISA experiment. You will use the results you obtain for the analysis and data interpretation. It is recommended to start this as soon as you have completed the practical. You will do the experiment in pairs in the laboratory, however, you must work individually on your Lab Report and Executive Summary submission. Guidance on how to get started with this will be provided by the demonstrator during the practical, and supporting screencasts on LearningZone.
Data Analysis Tutorial (L1f/01): This session will help you with the data analysis of your results. It is recommended that you attempt to analyse your results prior to this session.
Support Session (Sg/01-02) and Drop-in Support Session (L1l/01): In these sessions, we will go through any questions you have about writing the Lab Report and Executive Summary.
The Lab Report (400 words ± 10%) will consist of the following sections:
Title and aim of the report (<30 words)
Results (<250 words) – In this section, you will present your data in figures and describe the results. If the results you obtained are not suitable for analysis, results can be provided for the data analysis and interpretation.
Note: If you do not use your results for the data analysis, you will lose any marks allocated for ‘Accuracy’, but this will not affect any of the other sections. Refer to the mark scheme (Appendix A) for more information.
Conclusion (<50 words) – In this section, you will draw conclusions about the results.
Appendix (no word limit) – Include the raw data you used in the Results section, indicating if this was the data you generated or the ideal results provided.
In the Executive Summary (500 words ± 10%), taking into consideration the results you obtained from Part 1, you will write a summary detailing your recommendations for the patients.
This will be in the format of:
OR
Note: You will be allocated ONE of these options.
You will need to include the following information:
You will need to think about the type of language you use, depending on the audience you choose to write for. For both cases, you will be expected to cite suitable references in this Summary, including a reference list in Harvard or Vancouver style (Note: Your reference list will not be included in the word count).
A template will be provided for both the Lab Report and Executive Summary.
The Lab Report and Executive Summary will be submitted as a single document on Turnitin. The deadline for submission will be Friday 10 January 2025, 12:00 noon (Week 15).
The full marking scheme is given in Appendix A. It is recommended that you read this carefully to ensure you are covering all aspects of what is required in this coursework.
Each component will be given a mark out of 10, then weighted according to the Mark Weight. A different member of staff will moderate a selection of submissions across the grade boundaries to provide internal moderation across the cohort. Should a student score less than 40% (pass mark), their submission will be reviewed again in line with the marking scheme.
General cohort feedback and individual marks for the coursework will be available on LearningZone within 15 University working days of the deadline. If there are any delays in releasing individual marks, this will be communicated via LearningZone.
Appendix A
| Component | Mark Weight | Unsatisfactory [0 – 3] | Borderline [4 – 4.5] | Good [5 – 5.5] | Very good [6 – 6.5] | Excellent [7 – 10] |
| Accuracy | 12.5 | Results generated in the session not used for the analysis. | Positive and negative controls are within expected range. | As for borderline, including: Standard curve shows a gradient in absorbances with changing concentration. Triplicates are within expected range. | As for good, including: Standard curve values are within expected range. At least half the patient samples are within the expected range. | As for very good, including: All patient samples are within expected range. |
| Data Presentation | 12.5 | No standard curve provided. | Data points are clearly visible. Graph is not labelled. | As for borderline; also graph labelled appropriately including: Chart titleAxes labelsUnitsTrendline | As for good, including: Equation and R2 values for trendline is clearly indicated. | As for very good, including: Correct number of significant figures used. |
| Data Analysis | 20 | Unknown concentration in samples not calculated. | Calculations are attempted but incorrectly performed. | Calculations are correctly performed. Answers provided with correct units. | As for good, including: Final concentrations for all samples are within expected range. | As for very good, including: Correct number of significant figures used. |
| Data Interpretation | 5 | Incorrect conclusions drawn for all patients. | Correct conclusions drawn for at least 25% of samples. | Correct conclusions drawn for at least 50% of samples. | Correct conclusions drawn for at least 75% of samples. | Correct conclusion drawn from the data for all patients. |
| Component | Mark Weight | Unsatisfactory [0 – 3] | Borderline [4 – 4.5] | Good [5 – 5.5] | Very good [6 – 6.5] | Excellent [7 – 10] |
| Writing, Clarity, and Style | 12.5 | Poorly written and no originality. The work shows no interest for the topic or the audience. | Significant grammatical or spelling mistakes. Abbreviations used poorly or not at all. Inappropriate technical jargon used for the intended audience. Content and arguments presented in a disjointed manner. Overall, the writing is poorly structured so there is no natural flow or discussion. | Well written but structure could be improved to guide the reader through the discussions better (flow). Some grammatical mistakes or a few minor spelling mistakes. Abbreviations have not been clearly defined, are non-standard, or incorrect. | Very well written with good structure and flow throughout. Very few noticeable grammatical mistakes. No spelling mistakes. May not have defined all abbreviations or used some non-standard abbreviations. | As for very good but no errors. Writing is of the level of a professional publication, and appropriate for the intended audience. |
| Recommendations | 15 | No recommendations provided. One or more options provided that is not appropriate for the patients and could lead to harm. | Single treatment / follow up option given but lacks details. | Single treatment / follow up option chosen, with appropriate details (e.g. formulation, dosing regimen, etc) | Clearly identifies preferred management options that are appropriate, safe, and optimal for the patient. Secondary options may be given but not clearly states when these will be used, or lacks details. | As for very good but clearly outlines criteria (e.g. clinical progression, monitoring targets) for when the secondary options(s) will need to be used. |
| Critical Analysis | 12.5 | No critical analysis is provided. | Limitations of the test is mentioned, but lacks details. | Limitations of the test is explained, with appropriate details (e.g. reasons for lower accuracy). | Identifies limitations of the test, with clear link to the specific patient. Discusses follow up options. | As for very good but clearly prioritises the options available. |
| Referencing | 10 | Few references – none beyond the module material (e.g. lectures/seminars). If no references used this can be considered plagiarism and a case of academic malpractice. This will score a 0. | Some references, including resources beyond taught course material. Referencing style does not meet the recommended Harvard or Vancouver style. | As for very good, but has not referenced any professional or review articles (e.g. only uses books or websites). Minor consistency issues with referencing style used. All references in the reference section are also cited in the main text. | Uses a good range of secondary resources such as clinical guidelines, textbooks, professional articles, reliable websites, news articles, and review articles. Some primary evidence may have been included. Some irrelevant references included, or some basic points are over-referenced. No issues with referencing style. All references in the reference section are also cited in the main text. | As for very good but all referenced material is appropriate. Care has been taken to locate and use relevant primary evidence (e.g. clinical trials and original research). Referencing is not excessive, and appropriate for the intended audience. |
Enjoy 24/7 customer support for any queries or concerns you have.
Phone: +1 213 3772458
Email: support@gradeessays.com