Clinical Biochemistry


 Assessment Requirements

You should produce a coursework on the topic given below.

TITLE: The role of the Clinical Biochemistry laboratory in the diagnosis of HOMOCYSTINURIA

(pyridoxine unresponsive) (HCU)


  1. An accompanying commentary in the notes pane of approximately 3000 words, without considering References.


  • 3000 ± 300 words annotated slides).
    • Introduction to the disease (Include symptoms and signs, biochemistry supporting the pathophysiology)
    • Genetic background (e.g. mutations)
    • Clinical Tests available (e.g. metabolite, enzyme, gene mapping/sequence, include description of methodology)
    • Treatment/Prognosis
    • References

Assessment Criteria





Assessment Criteria


Exceptional Distinction

(includes all features of Distinction with the additional characteristics listed below)


Low | Mid | High


Low | Mid | High


Low | Mid | High

Marginal Fail Fail

Low | Mid

Content (breadth and depth of coverage of topic)

Weighting 0.5

Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding evidenced by own independent insight and critical awareness of concepts at the forefront of the discipline.

Cogent arguments and explanations are consistently provided.

Uses a sophisticated level of the English language in an eloquent and professional manner to both technical and non-technical audiences

Excellent knowledge and understanding evidenced by some clear independent insight and critical awareness of relevant concepts some of which are at the forefront of the discipline

Arguments and explanations are provided that are well-supported by the literature.

Work may be beyond the prescribed range and may evidences a competent understanding of the topic.

Demonstrates an ability to communicate effectively using own style that is suited to both technical and non-technical audiences.

Very good knowledge and understanding is evidenced as the student is typically able to independently relate facts/concepts together some of which are at the forefront of the discipline.

Arguments and explanations provided are supported by the literature.

Content is balanced and well-explained with competent use of the English language at a level suitable for a general scientific audience. There is some analysis.


Satisfactory knowledge and understanding of the area of study but balanced towards the descriptive rather than the critical or analytical.

Arguments and explanations are limited in range and depth although they are usually adequately supported by the literature.

Coverage of the topic may be imbalanced. Information may be poorly selected with somewhat too much information.

Content is mostly of an appropriate level for the intended audience. Minor factual errors may be present.

Knowledge and understanding is marginally insufficient as the student is typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts.

Works shows adequate knowledge of concepts within the topic but fails to add meaningful detail or make sufficient links between concepts.

The writing provides descriptive and unsubstantiated arguments, and there is a lack of reasoned judgement and evaluation. There may be major factual errors.


Knowledge and understanding is insufficient as the student only evidences an understanding of small subset of the necessary concepts and techniques.

Many arguments in this section are not supported by appropriate literature.

Content may be limited and simplistic.

The rationale lacks coherence and fails to make sufficient links between known concepts and facts.

Multiple major factual errors.

No submission or penalty.
Structure of presentation and commentary

Weighting 0.1

Exceptionally well-organised structure of fully professional standard. Excellent structure with clear signposting throughout.

Concepts are well developed and dealt with in a logical order. Introduction and conclusions are excellent.

The commentary refers frequently to the information presented on the power point slides.

A clear and logical structure with appropriate introductory and concluding sections.

Arguments are developed clearly and succinctly throughout the presentation.

Length of the presentation and commentary are appropriate.

Evidence of clear links between the power point slides and accompanying commentary.


All key points are included but the account may be poorly structured in places.

There may be imbalance between the sections.

The clarity of the introduction and/or conclusions could be improved.

Presentation is not greatly over-or under-length.




Commentary is not organized to develop a logical argument and may be overly repetitive or fail to match up adequately with the power point slides.

Irrelevant materials may be included.

Introduction and/or conclusions may be missing.

Presentation and commentary may be somewhat too long/short.

The presentation may be competent in places but fails to demonstrate structure, clarity and/or focus.

Most of the relevant key concepts are not explained in a coherent way.

Writing lacks a coherent structure.

Presentation and commentary may be significantly too long/short.

No submission or penalty
Presentation (quality and format of power point slides)

Weighting 0.3

Presentation has a fully professional appearance. It is attractive and has visual impact. Suitable for presentation at a conference. Power point slides have excellent layout that guides the audience to the most important points.

Text is easy to read and well-balanced with the use of images and space.

Colour scheme is attractive and imaginative but does not distract from the content.

Images are of high quality and have a clear purpose – they enhance understanding.

Presentation is attractive with careful use of colour and text of an appropriate font size.

Images are used appropriately and there is sufficient plain space on each slide.

There may be some very minor formatting issues.

Some effort has been made to produce attractive slides but they may be somewhat overcrowded.

The layout could be improved and there may be use of inappropriate font sizes.

Images are used but they may be lacking in quality and some may not be appropriate/relevant.

The power point slide contents are disorganised and the information presented is hard to follow.

Images used do not add to the audience’s understanding.

Content may be unbalanced with inappropriate font sizes and overcrowding of content on many slides.

Layout does not aid delivery of the content.

Minimal use of colour.

Images absent or used sparingly and/or inappropriately.

Content may be very unbalanced with poor choice of font sizes and overcrowding of content on many slides.

No submission or penalty

Weighting 0.1

References are original papers and reputable data sources. Cited sources are highly relevant to the topic under discussion, recent and of high quality. References show evidence of an extensive survey of relevant literature and careful selection of sources to provide balanced evidence in support of the arguments made.

Formatting of both the reference list and citations in the text is at a level appropriate for submission to a peer-reviewed journal.

References show evidence of a careful independent literature survey.

They are well-selected. Almost all are relevant and many are at the forefront of the field and recently published.

The references are used appropriately to support arguments in the text.

The reference list and the in-text citations are all well-formatted with few mistakes and all bibliographic information is complete.

The reference list shows evidence of an independent literature review.

The number of references is sufficient and they are used effectively to support key assertions.

Some references may not be immediately relevant to the topic under discussion.

Formatting of references is mainly consistent and correct, and all are cited in the text.

There is some evidence of literature review, although there may be limited use of sources beyond those suggested in seminars.

Not all references are relevant to the topic and a significant proportion may be review articles. The number of references may be insufficient.

There may be errors in the listing of references and/or the reference list may not match citations in the text.

Literature review is weak or unbalanced.

Little evidence of independent identification of appropriate sources.

Heavy reliance on reviews, irrelevant sources and/or non-reputable sources.

Formatting of in-text citations and reference list is inconsistent with some entries being incomplete.

No submission or penalty