Abstract Help =\

ProjectVirtue

Canada360 Posts

July 15 2011 15:46 GMT

So i'm trying to write my first abstract and it's a lot more difficult than I thought and I know many of you TL'ers are in your graduate studies already so your insight would be truly helpful.

To give some background, i'm only in my second year of undergrad and this is a summer research project. The project title is Susceptibility-enhanced imaging (SWI) and chronic cerebro-spinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) in Multiple Sclerosis.

To give a little background for clarity, multiple sclerosis has been correlated to high iron concentrations in the brain accelerating the progression of the demyelination in the deep white matter structures. Now, CCSVI is commonly caused by stenoses (narrowing of blood vessels) that causes venous reflux back into the brain causing even more iron accumulation. The problem is, that area of blood vessels is very difficult to image so my part of the research was to evaluate the methods to see which method would be the more appropriate for imaging CCSVI.

Now, my failure abstracts. I realized, despite the amount of research papers i've read for my courses, it never really sunk into me the actual structure of the abstract itself. as such, i looked at a couple of the papers to use as a bit of a template.

Abstract #1
Although chronic cerebro-spinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) has been correlated with iron accumulation in the central nervous system, it’s actual involvement in the progression of multiple sclerosis is unknown. Data from previous studies have suggested that susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) would be the most appropriate imaging technique to further investigate venous reflux associated with CCSVI. Another technique similar to SWI dubbed T2* weighted angiography (SWAN) has been suggested for investigating venous reflux as well. Signal Intensities from T2* weighted gradient echo imaging (T2* GRE) and SWAN were compared to determine their precision in CCSVI imaging. The data from patients was normalized by each of their cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) to be consistent across the cohort. A statistical analysis was carried out after coding the data for analysis of variance (ANOVA). This evaluation found that SWAN had a much greater degree of variance and a decrease in precision compared to T2* GRE.

Abstract #2
T2* Gradient Echo Imaging (GRE) and SWAN imaging was used to evaluate nine normal control patients and 15 patients with multiple sclerosis (determined by hyperintense lesions on T2 weighted fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) sequences). Regions of interest (ROI) were drawn around the globulus pallidus, putamen, and the thalamus and their signal intensities were measured and normalized by the cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF). The data was then coded up for use in analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine which method is more precise in diagnosing venous reflux in chronic cerebro-spinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI). The evaluation found that SWAN imaging had a far greater degree of variance compared to T2* GRE as represented by a larger p value indicating that there is a larger range between the minimum and maximum data points collected. To continue the study, T2* GRE will be compared to susceptibility weighted imagine (SWI) in a similar fashion.

Any insight would be helpful. Need to submit this to the scholarship people funding me soon for an upcoming presentation.

Dayrlan

United States248 Posts

July 15 2011 16:14 GMT

Either of these abstracts look relatively good. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to comment directly on the differences in the two (both will feel stilted to me since I don't know the jargon, but that's OK for an abstract of a technical paper -- I'm not your audience!).

General rules of thumb:

1) Overall goal: Tell the story of the paper in a few sentences
2) First, in a sentence or two, describe the context of your work (e.g., X and Y are methods for doing Z, and I'm going to compare the two using techniques A, B, and C). The paragraph you wrote that begins "To give a little background for clarity," is the type of thing you want here, but maybe polished appropriately
3) In a sentence, give a little more detail about what work YOU actually did
4) In a sentence or two, describe the major results ("SWAN rocks; T2* sucks." or similar, with explanation)

That's it.

Just aim for someone who knows the field well to be able to read your abstract and get a reasonable idea of what the point of you doing anything was, what you did, and what you found

OpticalShot

Canada6330 Posts

July 15 2011 16:25 GMT

I find abstract #2 more readable, and it gets to the point right away (as opposed to abstract #1 having a background-opening sentence). Just a grammar thing, "T2 Gradient Echo Imaging and SWAN imaging were used" would be correct as opposed to the "was" used above, since those two are distinct objects (imaging methods). Also you capitalized the i in the first imaging and not the second, so yeah.

Aside from grammar (apologies!!!), abstract 1 could be improved by adding future research / recommendations line at the end, and likewise for abstract 2 (it doesn't seem like a future research / recommendations line since you used "will" instead of stuff like "should." If the last line in abstract #2 is something you did in your research, then you should include the results for that too.

For both abstracts, you should make it obvious which one you concluded to be better (GRE vs SWAN) for imaging CCSVI. Just indicating that one had far greater degree of variance doesn't necessarily tell the reader which one you found to be better (so simply add like, the study found GRE to be better for imaging CCSVI).

Well I'm not trained in the same field, so perhaps I'm understanding everything wrong. =/

Chromyne

Canada561 Posts

July 15 2011 16:30 GMT

The first abstract sounds more like an introduction into experimental, while the second abstract sounds more like an experimental. I very much like your opening sentence for your second abstract more than your first.

I feel if you were to combine the two, it would make for a better abstract. You particularly want to get across exactly what you did (with maybe a brief intro to the topic, context; people looking for or reading your paper will likely know the jist of what you're doing), your results in general, and the implications of those results.

This is what I like to see what I'm reading abstracts, but I'm sure actual grad students with authorship experience can give you more insight.

Please or register to reply.

Abstract Help =\

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming