• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:07
CEST 06:07
KST 13:07
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL22] Ro4 Preview: Mirror Mirror6[ASL22] Ro8 Preview: Within Reach5[ASL22] Ro8 Preview: In A Tizzy11[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Holy Diver5[ASL22] Ro16 Preview: Rough Waters10
Community News
Rollback Netcode in Brood War845.0.17 Patch Notes - October 7, 202622Weekly Cups Results (Sep 28-Oct 4)0SC4ALL: II SC2 Complete Invited Player Lineup10StarCraft II 5.0.17 PTR Patch Notes (Sept 30, 2026)78
StarCraft 2
General
5.0.17 Patch Notes - October 7, 2026 ESL Pro Tour for SC2 discontinued [Old] StarCraft 3 Reportedly in Development StarCraft II 5.0.17 PTR Patch Notes (Sept 30, 2026) How do you feel about the mass reverts in the 5.0.17 PTR?
Tourneys
Stellar Fest TWO the Moon (Dec 16-20) ISSL (IntoTheTV x SOOP SC2 League): Premier RSL 2026 Offline Finals LCQ Sign-Ups $3,500 WardiTV Not-Summer Championship ScienceCraft (October 24-25) - Live Event
Strategy
[H] ZvP Mid-Late Game: Stalkers Collossi HT
Custom Maps
[M] (2) Sweltering Sands [M] (2) Frigid Storage
External Content
The PondCast: SC2 News & Results Mutation # 547 Temple Of Terror Mutation # 546 Catch the Train Mutation # 545 And Drops and Rifts
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion ASL FINALS HYPE VIDEO 2X Visiting korea this week BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ New 3v3 BGH Ladder (and more) on ShieldBattery!
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues ASL 22 Finals [ASL22] Semifinal A [ASL22] Semifinal B
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Cliff Jump Revisited (1 in a 1000 strategy) Replay Review Process - What do you do?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread General RTS Discussion Thread Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne Total Annihilation Zero
Dota 2
Dota 2 Champions League Season 3 Begins April 25!
League of Legends
[TL LoL EUW IHs] Teemo shall perish
Heroes of the Storm
Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Canadian Politics Mega-thread Artificial Intelligence Thread
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Diablo Animated Series on Netflix
Sports
Football (Soccer) Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 MLB/Baseball 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
The Link Between Gaming and …
TrAiDoS
[ASL22] Ro4 Day1 Ticket Giv…
bITt.mAN
38 yo Retired SWE loo…
PurE)Rabbit-SF
Can Bots Beat Pros?? Starcr…
namkraft
[meme] I finally understa…
LUCKY_NOOB
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 13544 users

Abstract Help =\

Blogs > ProjectVirtue
Post a Reply
ProjectVirtue
Profile Blog Joined February 2009
Canada360 Posts
July 15 2011 15:46 GMT
#1
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.

*
俺はダメ人間。。。
Dayrlan
Profile Joined November 2010
United States248 Posts
July 15 2011 16:14 GMT
#2
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
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
Canada6330 Posts
July 15 2011 16:25 GMT
#3
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. =/
[TLMS] REBOOT
Chromyne
Profile Joined January 2008
Canada561 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-07-15 16:36:02
July 15 2011 16:30 GMT
#4
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.
Soli Deo gloria.
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 6h 54m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RuFF_SC2 229
ProTech140
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 3237
GuemChi 1999
Sharp 222
Aegong 47
Dota 2
NeuroSwarm177
Counter-Strike
taco 523
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King90
Other Games
summit1g5801
JimRising 679
WinterStarcraft496
C9.Mang0281
PiGStarcraft278
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV150
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Letter1412
• practicex 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• Pr0nogo 3
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1050
• Rush633
• Stunt239
Other Games
• Shiphtur604
Upcoming Events
WardiTV Weekly
6h 54m
PiGosaur Cup
19h 54m
Kung Fu Cup
1d 6h
The PondCast
2 days
Online Event
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
3 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
BSL Open Qualifier
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
[ Show More ]
IPSL
5 days
BSL Open Qualifier
5 days
WardiTV Weekly
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2026-10-12
Blizzard Classic Cup 2026
Copium Cup

Ongoing

ASL Season 22
Super Anchor Qualifying S3
Acropolis #5
HCC Season 3
ESL Pro League Season 24
Stake Ranked Episode 4
1win Private Club #1
Logitech G Play Connect 2026
SL StarSeries Fall 2026
FISSURE Playground #3
BLAST Open Fall 2026
Esports World Cup 2026
BLAST Bounty Summer 2026

Upcoming

Acropolis #5 - GSC
BSL Season 23
SC4ALL II: Brood War
BSL 23: Non-Korean Championship
HSC XXX
Stellar Fest 2: Lunar Cup
SC4ALL II: StarCraft II
Kung Fu Cup 2026 Grand Finals
RSL Offline Finals
eXTREMESLAND 2026
PGL Major Singapore 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 6
BLAST Rivals Fall 2026
IEM Beijing 2026
Stake Ranked Episode 5
PGL Masters Bucharest 2026
1win Private Club #2
Thunderpick World Champ. '26
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2026 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.