Transcript Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Weekly Quiz A.

Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. It was a secret among friends.
B. It was a secret between friends.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. It was a secret among friends.
B. It was a secret between friends.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. The close friendship that existed between
them was quickly dissolved.
B. The close friendship that existed among
them was quickly dissolved.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. The close friendship that existed between
them was quickly dissolved.
B. The close friendship that existed among
them was quickly dissolved.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She eluded to the fight that occurred earlier.
B. She alluded to the the fight that occurred earlier.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She eluded to the fight that occurred earlier.
B. She alluded to the the fight that occurred
earlier.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She eluded the fight.
B. She alluded the fight.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She eluded the fight.
B. She alluded the fight.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She lies out in the sun.
B. She lays out in the sun.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She lies out in the sun.
B. She lays out in the sun.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She is lying out in the sun.
B. She is laying out in the sun.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She is lying out in the sun.
B. She is laying out in the sun.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She laid out in the sun yesterday.
B. She lay out in the sun yesterday.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She laid out in the sun yesterday.
B. She lay out in the sun yesterday.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She had laid out in the sun too much as a
kid.
B. She had lain out in the sun too much as a
kid.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She had laid out in the sun too much as a
kid.
B. She had lain out in the sun too much
as a kid.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She lies the book on the table.
B. She lays the book on the table.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She lies the book on the table.
B. She lays the book on the table.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She is lying the book on the table.
B. She is laying the book on the table.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She is lying the book on the table.
B. She is laying the book on the table.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She laid the book on the table this
morning.
B. She lay the book on the table this
morning.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She laid the book on the table this
morning.
B. She lay the book on the table this
morning.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She had lain the book on the table.
B. She had laid the book on the table.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She had lain the book on the table.
B. She had laid the book on the table.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. Now I lay down to sleep.
B. Now I lie down to sleep.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. Now I lay down to sleep.
B. Now I lie down to sleep.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. Now I lay me down to sleep.
B. Now I lie me down to sleep.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. Now I lay me down to sleep.
B. Now I lie me down to sleep.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She commented on the clearly defined
mutant traits.
B. She commented on the clearly-defined
mutant traits.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. She commented on the clearly defined
mutant traits.
B. She commented on the clearly-defined
mutant traits.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. I am disinterested in your results.
B. I am uninterested in your results.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. I am disinterested in your results.
B. I am uninterested in your results.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. We think you should look into an
alternative career path, i.e. get a new
job.
B. We think you should look into an
alternative career path, e.g. get a new
job.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. We think you should look into an
alternative career path, i.e. get a new
job.
B. We think you should look into an
alternative career path, e.g. get a new
job.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. They prefer mixed drinks, e.g. gin and
tonic or martinis.
B. They prefer mixed drinks, i.e. gin and
tonic or martinis.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. They prefer mixed drinks, e.g. gin and
tonic or martinis.
B. They prefer mixed drinks, i.e. gin and
tonic or martinis.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A.
B.
She served as a disinterested party in
the dispute.
She served as an uninterested party in
the dispute.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A.
B.
She served as a disinterested party in
the dispute.
She served as an uninterested party in
the dispute.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. You should eat more sweets, e.g.
chocolate.
B. You should eat more sweets, i.e.
chocolate.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. You should eat more sweets, e.g.
chocolate.
B. You should eat more sweets, i.e.
chocolate.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. Runners who develop overuse runningrelated injuries have lower intakes of
several key nutrients compared to noninjured runners.
B. Runners who develop overuse runningrelated injuries have lower intakes of
several key nutrients compared with noninjured runners.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. Runners who develop overuse runningrelated injuries have lower intakes of
several key nutrients compared to noninjured runners.
B. Runners who develop overuse
running-related injuries have lower
intakes of several key nutrients
compared with non-injured runners.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. Over half the runners sustained an injury
during the year.
B. More than half the runners sustained an
injury during the year.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Weekly Quiz
A. Over half the runners sustained an injury
during the year.
B. More than half the runners sustained
an injury during the year.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Lecture 7:
The Abstract, Introduction, and Discussion
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Abstracts (ab=out, trahere=pull; “to pull out”)






Overview of the main story
Gives highlights from each section of the paper
Limited length (100-300 words, typically)
Stands on its own
Used, with title, for electronic search engines
Most often, the only part people read
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Gives:
1.
Background
2.
Question asked

Experiment(s) done
3.




6.
Material studied (molecule, cell line, tissue, organ) or the animal or
human population studied
The experimental approach or study design and the independent and
dependent variables
Results found
4.
5.
“We asked whether,” “We hypothesized that,”…etc.
Key results found
Minimal raw data (prefer summaries)
The answer to the question asked
Implication, speculation, or recommendation
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Abstracts may be structured (with subheadings)
or free-form.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Structured example: (The Lancet, 2006 Feb
11;367(9509):475-81.)
Development of adenoviral-vector-based
pandemic influenza vaccine against
antigenically distinct human H5N1
strains in mice.
Hoelscher MA, Garg S, Bangari DS, Belser JA, Lu X,
Stephenson I, Bright RA, Katz JM, Mittal SK, Sambhara S.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Background
Question
asked
INTRODUCTION: Avian H5N1 influenza viruses currently circulating in
southeast Asia could potentially cause the next pandemic. However,
currently licensed human vaccines are subtype-specific and do not
protect against these H5N1 viruses. We aimed to develop an influenza
vaccine and assessed its immunogenicity and efficacy to confer
protection in BALB/c mice.
METHODS: We developed an egg-independent strategy to combat the avian
influenza virus, because the virus is highly lethal to chickens and the
maintenance of a constant supply of embryonated eggs would be difficult
in a pandemic. We used a replication-incompetent, human adenoviralvector-based, haemagglutinin subtype 5 influenza vaccine (HAd-H5HA),
which induces both humoral and cell-mediated immune responses
against avian H5N1 influenza viruses isolated from people.
Experiments
done
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Results found
FINDINGS: Immunisation of mice with HAd-H5HA provided effective
protection from H5N1 disease, death, and primary viral replication
(p<0.0001) against antigenically distinct strains of H5N1 influenza
viruses. Unlike the recombinant H5HA vaccine, which is based on a
traditional subunit vaccine approach, HAd-H5HA vaccine induced a
three-fold to eight-fold increase in HA-518-epitope-specific interferongamma-secreting CD8 T cells (p=0.01).
Answer to the question asked
INTERPRETATION: Our findings highlight the potential of an Ad-vectorbased delivery system, which is both egg-independent and adjuvantindependent and offers stockpiling options for the development of a
Wider implication
pandemic influenza vaccine.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Structured example 2:
N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 16;354(7):684-96.
Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation
and the risk of colorectal cancer.
Wactawski-Wende J, Kotchen JM, Anderson GL, Assaf AR, Brunner RL,
O'Sullivan MJ, Margolis KL, Ockene JK, Phillips L, Pottern L, Prentice RL,
Robbins J, Rohan TE, Sarto GE, Sharma S, Stefanick ML, Van Horn L, Wallace
RB, Whitlock E, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black HR, Bonds DE, Brzyski RG,
Caan B, Chlebowski RT, Cochrane B, Garland C, Gass M, Hays J, Heiss G,
Hendrix SL, Howard BV, Hsia J, Hubbell FA, Jackson RD, Johnson KC, Judd H,
Kooperberg CL, Kuller LH, LaCroix AZ, Lane DS, Langer RD, Lasser NL, Lewis
CE, Limacher MC, Manson JE; Women's Health Initiative Investigators.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Background
Literature
gap.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Higher intake of calcium and vitamin D has been
associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer in epidemiologic
studies and polyp recurrence in polyp-prevention trials. However,
randomized-trial evidence that calcium with vitamin D supplementation
is beneficial in the primary prevention of colorectal cancer is lacking.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
trial involving 36,282 postmenopausal women from 40 Women's Health
Initiative centers: 18,176 women received 500 mg of elemental calcium as
calcium carbonate with 200 IU of vitamin D3 twice daily (1000 mg of
elemental calcium and 400 IU of vitamin D3) and 18,106 received a
matching placebo for an average of 7.0 years. The incidence of
pathologically confirmed colorectal cancer was the designated secondary
outcome. Baseline levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D were assessed in
a nested case-control study.
Study Design
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Results found
RESULTS: The incidence of invasive colorectal cancer did not differ
significantly between women assigned to calcium plus vitamin D
supplementation and those assigned to placebo (168 and 154 cases;
hazard ratio, 1.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.34; P=0.51),
and the tumor characteristics were similar in the two groups. The
frequency of colorectal-cancer screening and abdominal symptoms was
similar in the two groups. There were no significant treatment
interactions with baseline characteristics.
Answer to the question asked
CONCLUSIONS: Daily supplementation of calcium with vitamin D for seven
years had no effect on the incidence of colorectal cancer among
postmenopausal women. The long latency associated with the
development of colorectal cancer, along with the seven-year duration of
the trial, may have contributed to this null finding. Ongoing follow-up
will assess the longer-term effect of thisThe
intervention.
caveats.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Even more subheadings…
Effect of Rimonabant, a Cannabinoid-1
Receptor Blocker, on Weight and
Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in
Overweight or Obese Patients RIO-North
America: A Randomized Controlled Trial
F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, MD; Louis J. Aronne, MD; Hassan M.
Heshmati, MD; Jeanne Devin, MS; Julio Rosenstock, MD;
for the RIO-North America Study Group
JAMA. 2006;295:761-775.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Context: Rimonabant, a selective cannabinoid-1 receptor blocker,
may reduce body weight and improve cardiometabolic risk
factors in patients who are overweight or obese.
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of rimonabant with
placebo each in conjunction with diet and exercise for sustained
changes in weight and cardiometabolic risk factors over 2
years.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial of 3045 obese (body mass index 30) or
overweight (body mass index >27 and treated or untreated
hypertension or dyslipidemia) adult patients at 64 US and 8
Canadian clinical research centers from August 2001 to April
2004.
Intervention: After a 4-week single-blind placebo plus diet (600
kcal/d deficit) run-in period, patients were randomized to
receive placebo, 5 mg/d of rimonabant, or 20 mg/d of
rimonabant for 1 year. Rimonabant-treated patients were
rerandomized to receive placebo or continued to receive the
same rimonabant dose while the placebo group continued to
receive placebo during year 2.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Results: At year 1, the completion rate was 309 (51%) patients in
the placebo group, 620 (51%) patients in the 5 mg of
rimonabant group, and 673 (55%) patients in the 20 mg of
rimonabant group. Compared with the placebo group, the 20 mg
of rimonabant group produced greater mean (SEM) reductions
in weight (–6.3 [0.2] kg vs –1.6 [0.2] kg; P<.001), waist
circumference (–6.1 [0.2] cm vs –2.5 [0.3] cm; P<.001), and
level of triglycerides (percentage change, –5.3 [1.2] vs 7.9
[2.0]; P<.001) and a greater increase in level of high-density
lipoprotein cholesterol (percentage change, 12.6 [0.5] vs 5.4
[0.7]; P<.001). Patients who were switched from the 20 mg of
rimonabant group to the placebo group during year 2
experienced weight regain while those who continued to
receive 20 mg of rimonabant maintained their weight loss and
favorable changes in cardiometabolic risk factors. Use of
different imputation methods to account for the high rate of
dropouts in all 3 groups yielded similar results. Rimonabant was
generally well tolerated; the most common drug-related
adverse event was nausea (11.2% for the 20 mg of rimonabant
group vs 5.8% for the placebo group).
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Conclusions: In this multicenter trial, treatment with 20
mg/d of rimonabant plus diet for 2 years promoted
modest but sustained reductions in weight and waist
circumference and favorable changes in cardiometabolic
risk factors. However, the trial was limited by a high
drop-out rate and longer-term effects of the drug require
further study.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Abstracts
Science. 2006 Feb 17;311(5763):1020-2. Causal reasoning in rats. Blaisdell
AP, Sawa K, Leising KJ, Waldmann MR.
Empirical research with nonhuman primates appears to support the view that
causal reasoning is a key cognitive faculty that divides humans from animals.
The claim is that animals approximate causal learning using associative
processes. The present results cast doubt on that conclusion. Rats made causal
inferences in a basic task that taps into core features of causal reasoning without
requiring complex physical knowledge. They derived predictions of the
outcomes of interventions after passive observational learning of different kinds
of causal models. These competencies cannot be explained by current associative
theories but are consistent with causal Bayes net theories.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Introduction and Background
Introduction and Background Section
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Introduction and Background
The Literature Search

Utilize online databases, such as MEDLINE, PubMed, and
Ovid.

Have a search strategy.

Have an organizational system!
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Introduction and Background
The Literature Review

Summarize the current state of knowledge in the area of investigation.

You may have to return to the literature once your results are in hand.







Assume your reader is knowledgeable about the field.
Do not provide an exhaustive historical review.
Avoid nonessential details.
Summarize previous results and conclusions, but do not give the
methods that generated these findings unless they are relevant to your
research question (i.e., your experiment addresses a specific
methodologic limitation of previous experiments)
Refer the reader to general surveys or reviews of the topic if available.
Cite references that reflect the key work that led to your research
question.
Limit the number of references.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
In writing the literature review, summarize
rather than listing every possible reference
and example.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Introduction and Background
Introduction and Background
1. What’s known
2. What’s unknown

Critical literature review
limitations and gaps in previous studies
3. Your burning question
4. Your experimental approach
5. Why your experimental approach is new and different
and important
From:
Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers by Mimi Zeiger
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Introduction
Tell a story:

Write it in plain English, not tech-speak.

Take the reader step by step from what is known to
what is unknown. End with your specific question.
(KnownUnknownQuestion)

Emphasize what is new and important about your
work.

Do not state the answer to the research question.

Do not include results or implications.
Introduction

Overweight, Obesity, and Mortality from Cancer in a
Prospectively Studied Cohort of U.S. Adults
Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., Kimberly
Walker-Thurmond, B.A., and Michael J. Thun, M.D.
What’s
What’sknown
known
What’s
What’sunknown
unknown
The relations between excess body weight and mortality, not only from all
causes but also from cardiovascular disease, are well established.1,2,3,4,5,6
Although we have known for some time that excess weight is also an important
factor in death from cancer,7 our knowledge of the magnitude of the relation, both
for all cancers and for cancers at individual sites, and the public health effect of
excess weight in terms of total mortality from cancer is limited. Previous studies
have consistently shown associations between adiposity and increased risk of
cancers of the endometrium, kidney, gallbladder (in women), breast (in
postmenopausal women), and colon (particularly in men).8,9,10,11,12
Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus has been linked to obesity.11,13,14 Data on
cancers of the pancreas, prostate, liver, cervix, and ovary and on hematopoietic
cancers are scarce or inconsistent.7,8,9,10,11,15,16,17 The lack of consistency may be
attributable to the limited number of studies (especially those with prospective
cohorts), the limited range and variable categorization of overweight and obesity
among studies, bias introduced by reverse causality with respect to smokingrelated cancers, and possibly real differences between the effects of overweight
and obesity on the incidence of cancer and on the rates of death from some
cancers.18,19
We conducted a prospective investigation in a large cohort of U.S. men and
women to determine the relations between body-mass index (the weight in
kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) and the risk of death
from cancer at specific sites. This cohort has been used previously to examine
the association of body-mass index and death from any cause.5
“This study will
answer the
question with
better methods.”
Gaps/limitations of
previous studies
Gaps in
The lit.
previous
research
Scientificreview
Writing,
HRP 214
What’s
unknown/the
research
question
What’s
known
Exogenous estrogens prevent or substantially
retard the decrease in bone
Introduction
mineral density (BMD) that accompanies menopause [1]. However, it is unclear
whether exogenous estrogens, administered as oral contraceptives (OCs), can
modify premenopausal BMD. Several studies suggest that exposure to OCs
during the premenopausal years has a favorable effect on BMD [2-10], whereas
other studies show no effect [11-18].
Past studies of the relationship between OC use and BMD have several
limitations. Studies have focused primarily on crude measures of OC use, such
as current, pastThis
and never.
These categories combine diverse types of OC use
study
and may reduce the power to detect an effect. Many studies also failed to take
into account lifestyle characteristics of study participants. Finally, few studies
have considered an effect of OCs on BMD in women of races other than white.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the associations of OCs with spine, hip
and whole body BMD in black and white premenopausal women. Our primary
hypothesis was that there would be an association between cumulative exposure
to estrogen from OCs and BMD.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Neurohumoral Features of Myocardial
Stunning Due to Sudden Emotional Stress
Ilan S. Wittstein, M.D., David R. Thiemann, M.D., Joao A.C. Lima, M.D., Kenneth L.
Baughman, M.D., Steven P. Schulman, M.D., Gary Gerstenblith, M.D., Katherine C. Wu,
M.D., Jeffrey J. Rade, M.D., Trinity J. Bivalacqua, M.D., Ph.D., and Hunter C. Champion,
M.D., Ph.D. T
New Engl J Med Volume 352:539-548; Feb 10, 2005.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Background/
The lit.
relevance
The potentially
lethal
consequences
of
emotional
review
stress are deeply rooted in folk wisdom, as reflected
by phrases such as "scared to death" and "a broken
heart." In the past decade, cardiac contractile
abnormalities and heart failure have been reported
after acute emotional stress,1,2,3,4,5,6 but the
This study remains unknown. We evaluated 19
mechanism
What’s
patients with "stress cardiomyopathy,"
a syndrome of
unknownby acute
profound myocardial stunning precipitated
emotional stress, in an effort to identify the clinical
features that distinguish this syndrome from acute
myocardial infarction and the cause of transient
stress-induced myocardial dysfunction.
Introduction: systematic review
Effectiveness of speed cameras in
preventing road traffic collisions and related
casualties: systematic review
Paul Pilkington, lecturer in public health1, Sanjay Kinra, lecturer
in epidemiology and public health medicine2 1 University of the
West of England, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Bristol
BS16 1DD, 2 Department of Social Medicine, University of
Bristol, Bristol .
BMJ Feb. 10, 2005
Statement of problem. What’s known.
Road traffic collisions are an important cause of death and disability worldwide.
Every year around the world 1.2 million people are killed and up to 50 million are
injured or disabled as a result of road traffic collisions.1 Morbidity from road traffic
collisions is expected to increase in future years, and it is estimated that road traffic
collisions will move from ninth to third place in the global burden of disease
ranking, as measured in disability adjusted life years.2 3
Measures to reduce traffic speed are considered essential to reducing casualties on
the road.1 4 5 Speed cameras are increasingly used to help to reduce traffic speeds in
the What’s
belief that unknown/controversial.
this will reduce road traffic collisions and casualties, and an
expansion in the use of speed cameras is under way in many countries, most notably
the United Kingdom.6 The use of speed cameras is controversial, however.
Vociferous opponents, including some motoring associated organisations, oppose
their use, and cameras are often criticised in the media.7-9 The lack of readily
available evidence of the effectiveness of cameras has made it difficult for road
safety and
health professionals
to engageresearch.
in an informed debate about the
Limitations
of previous
effectiveness of speed cameras.
A previous
review
of six
studies found
a 17% reduction in
Whatsmall
wenon-systematic
did to answer
this
question
better.
collisions after introduction of speed cameras.10 Non-systematic reviews can,
however, be limited by bias. We aimed, therefore, to systematically assess the
evidence for the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing road traffic collisions
and related casualties.
Introduction: cohort study
Adherence to Mediterranean diet and
risk of developing diabetes:
prospective cohort study
M Á Martínez-González, professor of epidemiology and chair,1 C de la
Fuente-Arrillaga, research assistant,1 J M Nunez-Cordoba, research
fellow,1,2 F J Basterra-Gortari, research fellow,1,3 J J Beunza,
assistant professor,1 Z Vazquez, research assistant,1 S Benito,
research assistant,1 A Tortosa, research fellow,1 and M Bes-Rastrollo,
assistant professor1
BMJ June 14, 2008
Background on the Mediterranean diet.

Diabetes mellitus is an increasingly important global public health problem
that threatens to reach pandemic levels by 2030.1 2 As some randomised
trials have consistently shown, increased physical activity and weight loss
are efficient approaches for the control and prevention of type 2 diabetes.3 4
Diet has also long been believed to be an important risk factor for diabetes.
Many studies have shown that the Mediterranean food pattern has a role in
prevention of cardiovascular disease.5 6 7 8 9 The similarity of some risk
factors and some empirical and mechanistic evidence suggest that the
Mediterranean diet can also protect against diabetes. The major protective
characteristics include a high intake of fibre, a high intake of vegetable fat, a
low intake of trans fatty acids, and a moderate intake of alcohol.4 10 11
Moreover, a particular feature of the diet is the abundant use of virgin olive
oil for cooking, frying, spreading on bread, or dressing salads.12 This leads
to a high ratio of monounsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids. This
What
is known
about
Mediterranean
ratio
can be
used to score
adherence
to a Mediterranean diet8 as the
traditional
diet.
Despite having a relatively high total fat content, this food
diet
and
diabetes.
pattern is rich in monounsaturated fatty acids (from olive oil) and poor in
saturated fatty acids. Diets rich in monounsaturated fatty acids improve lipid
profiles and glycaemic control in people with diabetes, suggesting that a
high intake improves insulin sensitivity.13 14 15 16 Together these
associations suggest the hypothesis that following an overall pattern of
Mediterranean diet can protect against diabetes. In addition to having a long
tradition of use without evidence of harm, a Mediterranean diet is highly
palatable, and people are likely to comply with it.17
What’s unknown/gaps in literature.

Few prospective studies have evaluated the specific role of the
Mediterranean diet on the risk of developing diabetes in initially healthy
Mediterranean populations. A prospective follow-up study recently reported
an inverse association between adherence to the diet and the incidence of
diabetes.18 All members of that study, however, had survived a previous
myocardial infarction and the tool to assess dietary habits had inherent
limitations because it included only a short list of items, and the authors did
not attempt to measure the entire diet.
What we did to answer this question better.

We evaluated the association between adherence to a Mediterranean diet
and the incidence of diabetes using a full validated food frequency
questionnaire to measure the entire diet.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Introduction and Background
Introduction and Background
1. What’s known
2. What’s unknown

Critical literature review
limitations and gaps in previous studies
3. Your burning question
4. Your experimental approach
5. Why your experimental approach is new and different
and important
From:
Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers by Mimi Zeiger
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Introduction
Tell a story:

Write it in plain English, not tech-speak.

Take the reader step by step from what is known to
what is unknown. End with your specific question.
(KnownUnknownQuestion)

Emphasize what is new and important about your
work.

Do not state the answer to the research question.

Do not include results or implications.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
THE DISCUSSION
The Discussion is the section that…
•
•
•
Gives you the most freedom
Gives you the most chance to put good
writing on display
Is the most challenging to write
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
Follow your rules for good writing!
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
The purpose of the discussion:
•
•
•
•
Answer the question posed in the Introduction
Support your conclusion with details (yours, others)
Defend your conclusion (acknowledge limits)
Highlight the broader implications of the work
i.e., What do my results mean and why should anyone
care?
Framework of the Discussion
QUESTION TO ADDRESS
CONTENT
What’s the central
finding?
Restate the finding.
Place in the context of other work.
Clearly state what’s new.
Could it be wrong?
Identify and deal with threats to validity. Consider alternative
explanations for your findings given the study design (for clinical or
epidemiologic studies):
BEFORE/AFTER
Temporal trend
Regression to the mean
Selection bias
What does it mean?
OBSERVATIONAL
RANDOMIZED
TRIAL
Loss to follow-up
Low response rate
Recall bias
Unmeasured confounding
Inadequate blinding
Ascertainment bias
Loss to follow-up
Put your work in perspective. Assess its generalizability, and speculate
about its implications.
Suggest mechanisms.
Specify what you think should happen next.
Table 2, Adapted From: Welch HG. Preparing Manuscripts for Submission to Medical
Journals: The Paper Trail. Effective Clinical Practice. 1999; 2: 131-137.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
The introduction moves from general to specific.
The discussion moves from specific to general.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
Elements of the typical discussion section…
Key finding (answer to the question(s) asked in Intro.)
1.
•
•
•
Key secondary findings
Context
2.
3.
•
•
•
Compare your results with other people’s results
Compare your results with existing paradigms
Explain unexpected or surprising findings
Strengths and limitations
What’s next
4.
5.
•
•
•
Recommended confirmatory studies (“needs to be confirmed”)
Unanswered questions
Future directions
The “so what?”: implicate, speculate, recommend
6.
•
7.
Supporting explanation, details (lines of evidence)
Possible mechanisms or pathways
Is this finding novel?
Clinical implications of basic science findings
Strong conclusion (kicker!)
EXAMPLE: Samaha FF, Iqbal N, Seshadri P, et al. A
low-carbohydrate as compared with a low-fat diet in
severe obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2074-2081.
INTRODUCTION
The differences in health benefits between a carbohydraterestricted diet and a calorie- and fat-restricted diet are of
considerable public interest. However, there is concern that a
carbohydrate-restricted diet will adversely affect serum lipid
concentrations.1 Previous studies demonstrating that healthy
volunteers following a low-carbohydrate diet can lose weight have
involved few subjects, and few used a comparison group that
followed consensus guidelines for weight loss.2,3 The reported
effects of a carbohydrate-restricted diet on risk factors for
atherosclerosis have varied.2,3,4 We performed a study
designed to test the hypothesis that severely obese subjects
with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic
syndrome [a] would have a greater weight loss, [b] without
detrimental effects on risk factors for atherosclerosis, while
on a carbohydrate-restricted (low-carbohydrate) diet than on
a calorie- and fat-restricted (low-fat) diet.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
1. We found that severely obese subjects with a high
prevalence of diabetes and the metabolic syndrome lost
more weight in a six-month period on a carbohydraterestricted diet than on a fat- and calorie-restricted diet.
[answer to a] The greater weight loss in the lowcarbohydrate group suggests a greater reduction in
overall caloric intake, rather than a direct effect of
macronutrient composition. [mechanisms] However, the
explanation for this difference is not clear. Subjects in this
group may have experienced greater satiety on a diet
with liberal proportions of protein and fat. However, other
potential explanations include the simplicity of the diet
and improved compliance related to the novelty of the
diet. [possible mechanisms/unanswered questions]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
2. Subjects in the low-carbohydrate group had greater decreases in triglyceride
levels than did subjects in the low-fat group; nondiabetic subjects on the lowcarbohydrate diet had greater increases in insulin sensitivity, and subjects with
diabetes on this diet had a greater improvement in glycemic control. No adverse
effects on other serum lipid levels were observed. [answer to b] Most
studies suggest that lowering triglyceride levels has an overall cardiovascular
benefit.14,15,16 Insulin resistance promotes such atherosclerotic processes as
inflammation,17 decreased size of low-density lipoprotein particles,18 and
endothelial dysfunction.19 Impaired glycemic control in subjects with other
features of the metabolic syndrome markedly increases the risk of coronary
artery disease.20 As expected, we found that the amount of weight lost had a
significant effect on the degree of improvement in these metabolic factors.
[comparison to previous studies and paradigms] However,
even after adjustment for the differences in weight loss between the groups,
assignment to the low-carbohydrate diet predicted greater improvements in
triglyceride levels and insulin sensitivity. [unexpected] Subjects who lost
more than 5 percent of their base-line weight on a carbohydrate-restricted diet
had greater decreases in triglyceride levels than those who lost a similar
amount of weight while following a calorie- and fat-restricted diet.
[supporting details]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
3. There was a consistent trend across weight-loss strata toward
a greater increase in insulin sensitivity in the low-carbohydrate
group, although these changes were small and were not
significant within each stratum. [supporting details:
dose/response] Although greater weight loss could not entirely
account for the greater decrease in triglyceride levels and
increase in insulin sensitivity in the low-carbohydrate group, we
cannot definitively conclude that carbohydrate restriction alone
accounted for this independent effect. [mechanisms] Other
uncontrolled variables, such as the types of carbohydrates
selected (e.g., the proportion of complex carbohydrates or the
ratio of carbohydrate to fiber), or other unknown variables may
have contributed to this effect. In addition, more precise
measurements of insulin sensitivity than we used would be
needed to confirm this effect of a carbohydrate-restricted diet.
[limitations/future studies]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
4. Many of our subjects were taking lipid-lowering
medications and hypoglycemic agents. Although
enrolling these subjects introduced confounding
variables, it allowed the inclusion of subjects with the
obesity-related medical disorders typically
encountered in clinical practice. Analyses from which
these subjects were excluded still revealed greater
improvements in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride
levels on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a fatand calorie-restricted diet. [limitations and how they
were addressed]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
5. Our study included a high proportion of black subjects,
a group previously underrepresented in lifestylemodification studies. [strength] As compared with the
white subjects, the black subjects had a smaller
overall weight loss. Future studies should explore
whether greater weight loss in this population can be
achieved by more effective incorporation of culturally
sensitive dietary counseling. [future directions]
6. The high dropout rate in our study occurred very early
and affected our findings. The very early dropout of
these subjects may indicate that attrition most closely
reflected base-line motivation to lose weight, rather
than a response to the dietary intervention itself.
[limitation]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
7. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that severely obese subjects with
a high prevalence of diabetes and the metabolic syndrome lost more weight
during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fatrestricted diet. The carbohydrate-restricted diet led to greater improvements in
insulin sensitivity that were independent of weight loss and a greater
reduction in triglyceride levels in subjects who lost more than 5 percent of
their base-line weight. [conclusion; restate answers to a and b] These
findings must be interpreted with caution, however, since the magnitude of the
overall weight loss relative to our subjects' severe obesity was small, and it is
unclear whether these benefits of a carbohydrate-restricted diet extend
beyond six months. Furthermore, the high dropout rate and the small overall
weight loss demonstrate that dietary adherence was relatively low in both diet
groups. [big picture] This study proves a principle and does not provide
clinical guidance; given the known benefits of fat restriction, future
studies evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes are needed
before a carbohydrate-restricted diet can be endorsed. [take-home
message]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
Things to avoid in the discussion:
•
Do not simply repeat what is in the Results
•
Do not try to explain every minor flaw
•
Do not attempt to explain away every
unexpected result
•
Do not exaggerate or make extravagant
claims
•
Don’t hedge
What NOT to do!
Don’t start your discussion like this!!
Discussion
 This meta-analysis is subject to a number of
limitations. The estimates of risk for melanoma
subsequent to using sunlamps/sunbeds are
based on published data in a series of 10
articles over a period of 20 years. A pooled
analysis of original observations taken in the 10
studies would have provided a more powerful
approach …
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion: verb tense
Verb Tenses (active!):
Past, when referring to study details, results, analyses,
and background research:
•
We found that
•
They lost more weight than
•
Subjects may have experienced
•
Miller et al. found
Present, when talking about what the data suggest …
The greater weight loss suggests
The explanation for this difference is not clear.
Potential explanations include
EXAMPLE 2: Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of
Colorectal Cancer The Women's Health Initiative
Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial.
JAMA. 2006;295:643-654.
INTRODUCTION
The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Dietary Modification Trial is a randomized
controlled trial designed in 1991-1992 to test whether a low-fat eating pattern with
increased fruits, vegetables, and grains reduces the risk of breast cancer, colorectal
cancer, or, secondarily, coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. At that
time, international comparisons suggested that countries with 50% lower fat intake
than the US population had approximately one third the risk of colorectal cancer.1-2
Migration studies supported this hypothesis. Women migrating from countries with
low fat consumption to countries with high fat consumption experienced the higher
colorectal cancer rates of their new country.3-4 Fairly consistent evidence existed
for an effect of dietary fat, vegetables and fruits, and grains on colorectal cancer
risk from within-country observational studies,2, 5-8 although the protective effect
of lower fat intake was no longer clear after adjusting for energy intake.2, 9 The
WHI Dietary Modification Trial is the first randomized trial to
directly address the health effects of a low-fat eating pattern in
predominantly healthy postmenopausal women from diverse
racial/ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This
article reports the principal results for colorectal cancer. [the
question]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
1. An intervention aimed toward a low-fat eating pattern
did not reduce colorectal cancer risk in postmenopausal
women. [answer to the question asked] Despite a
significant change in fat intake and increases in
vegetable, fruit, and grain consumption, the
intervention hazard ratio is in the direction of an
increased risk. [supporting evidence from this trial]
There were no substantial differences in tumor
characteristics or in rates of bowel screening between
groups. [supporting evidence] Although self-reported
incidence of colorectal polyps or adenomas was lower in
the intervention group, no evidence of a trend toward
lower colorectal cancer risk with time in the intervention
group was observed over the mean 8.1-year study
period.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The
Discussion
2. These findings are consistent with the findings from the
Polyp Prevention Trial,31 a secondary prevention trial of
polyp recurrence, which had a similar goal for fat, fruit,
and vegetable intake but also included a goal of 18
g/1000 kcal of dietary fiber.32 The Polyp Prevention Trial
observed no effect on polyp recurrence in the 2079
participants followed up for 4 years.32 A small trial in
Toronto, Ontario, of high fiber and low fat showed no
effect on recurrence of neoplastic polyps, but, within an
intensive counseling subgroup, concentrations of fecal bile
acids appeared to be reduced.33 A small factorial trial in
Australia of a low-fat intervention, -carotene
supplementation, or wheat bran supplementation found no
reduction in recurrence rates of adenomas but suggested
that the combination of low fat and wheat bran reduced
the transition from smaller to larger adenomas.34
[supporting evidence: other TRIALS]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
3. Since the WHI Dietary Modification Trial was designed,
the hypothesized relationship between dietary fat and risk
of colorectal cancer has been questioned.35 More recently,
higher red meat consumption has been associated with
increased colorectal cancer risk,23, 36-39 particularly in the
distal colon.23 The putative mechanism may be related to
heme, the iron carrier of red meat, rather than to its fat
content.23 In the WHI, the dietary intervention reduced
red meat consumption (Table 2), with no apparent overall
benefit on colorectal cancer risk but, perhaps, some shift
in risk in distal vs proximal colon cancers.
[consistency with the latest paradigm]
[mechanisms: is red meat more important than
fat?]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
4.
Mixed support exists for an influence of vegetables and fruits on
colorectal cancer risk.37, 40-42 Some of the antioxidants they contain
have not proved efficacious in reducing colorectal adenomas or
preventing incident colorectal cancer in randomized trials.43-45 Regular
consumption of alcohol has been associated with elevated risk of
colorectal cancer in some prospective studies, particularly among
persons with low folate status.46 This pattern was not found in the
comparison group of this study. Observations in East Africa by
Burkitt47 led to the hypothesis that very high fiber reduces colorectal
cancer risk. This has mixed support from observational studies48-50
and polyp and adenoma recurrence trials.31, 33-34,51-52 A European trial
found an adverse effect of soluble fiber on colorectal adenoma
recurrence,51 while an Arizona trial found no effect of wheat bran
supplement on colorectal adenoma recurrence.52 Our study is
consistent with lack of association in that women in the intervention
group modestly increased their fiber (Table 2) with no apparent
benefit over 8.1 years of follow-up.
[existing paradigms: does fiber matter?]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
5. The observed interactions between the
intervention and baseline aspirin use, and
between intervention and use of combined
hormone therapy, are consistent with
synergistic effects of a low-fat dietary pattern
and these potentially protective agents.
However, given the large number of
interactions tested, these findings could also
have occurred by chance.
[Could the null finding be wrong? Maybe low-fat
diet matters for some groups]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
6. From National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
data, in 1977, women reported consuming 40.5% of their energy
from fat, while in 1987, the average was only 35.9%,54 and in 2000,
the average was 33% (NHANES 1999-2000). Organizations including
the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and Institute
for Cancer Prevention have recommended both lower fat intake and
increased vegetable and fruit use.55-56
7. One explanation for a lack of intervention effect on colorectal
cancer could be that the intervention did not achieve a large enough
difference between the intervention and comparison groups. Although
the changes achieved were substantial, and likely as large as could be
achieved in a trial of free-living individuals, they fell short of the
original design assumptions based on the Women's Health Trial
studies.27 Using food frequency data, the WHI intervention on
average achieved only about 70% of the designed reduction in fat. If
design assumptions are revised to take into account this departure
from goal, the predicted HR would have been 0.86, an effect size
excluded by these results. The power to detect this effect size under
the observed comparison group incidence rate and the achieved
adherence is approximately 40%. [Could the null finding be
wrong? Alternative explanations to no association]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
8. Whether greater adherence, intervention of longer
duration, or initiation of change at an earlier age would
influence colorectal cancer risk remain unanswered
questions. The self-reported first occurrence of polyps or
adenomas was lower in dietary intervention women,
suggesting that longer follow-up (currently planned) may
reveal delayed benefit in favor of the intervention. Yet no
time trends regarding colorectal cancer risk over 8 years
of follow-up have been seen. To the extent that the WHI
Dietary Modification Trial intervention addressed the
recommendations from national organizations, the curren
results suggest that changing dietary patterns to meet
these recommendations in mid to late life will have
limited or no benefit in preventing colorectal cancers in
postmenopausal women. [Defending their results]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
9. The strengths of this study are its randomized design,
long-term follow-up, large numbers of participants,
diversity of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, and
high retention rate. The limitations of this study include
not attaining intervention goals as designed for reducing
fat intake or achieving large separation from the
comparison group in increased fruit, vegetable, or grain
intake. Thus the potential intervention effect of the WHI
low-fat dietary pattern may be underestimated.
Furthermore, there was no study-specified colonoscopy,
nor was there systematic screening for adenomatous
polyps; hence, the incidence of both colorectal cancer and
polyps or adenomas would be underestimated.
[Strengths and limitations]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
10. In conclusion, there is no evidence
that a low-fat dietary pattern intervention
reduces colorectal cancer risk over an
average of 8.1 years of follow-up.
[Restatement of findings] Evidence from
this study, along with that from polyp
prevention trials, strongly suggests that
lowering dietary fat intake and increasing
fruit, vegetable, and fiber intake in mid to
late life cannot be expected to reduce the
risk of colorectal cancer in this length of
time. [Take-home message]
EXAMPLE: Adherence to Mediterranean diet
and risk of developing diabetes: prospective
cohort study
BMJ June 2008
END OF INTRODUCTION:
We evaluated the association between
adherence to a Mediterranean diet and
the incidence of diabetes using a full
validated food frequency
questionnaire to measure the entire
diet.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
1. This large prospective study shows that
a traditional Mediterranean food pattern is
associated with a significant reduction in
the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
[answer to question asked]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
2. Interestingly, among participants with the highest adherence to the diet, there was a
high prevalence of important risk factors for diabetes, such as older age, higher BMI,
family history of diabetes, and personal history of hypertension and a higher proportion
of ex-smokers. Therefore, we would have expected a higher incidence of diabetes
among these participants. These higher risk participants with better adherence to the
diet, however, had a lower risk of diabetes, suggesting that the diet might have a
substantial potential for prevention. [ “bonus” finding/additional
evidence] This finding is consistent with our previous report of an inverse
association between a Mediterranean diet and the metabolic syndrome.24 [fits
with previous research] The metabolic syndrome is closely associated
with a generalised metabolic disorder of insulin resistance, which is one of the
underlying causes of type 2 diabetes. Therefore a high biological plausibility exists to
support the causality of our findings. [biological mechanisms] In
addition, a previous cohort study of survivors of myocardial infarction also reported that
a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with a reduction in the risk
of type 2 diabetes,18 [fits previous research] despite use of a relatively
inaccurate tool for the dietary assessment. The inverse graded dose-response pattern
and the significant inverse trend that we observed also support a causal relation.
[dose-response evidence]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
3. Diet and disease
Experimental evidence suggesting that a diet similar to the
Mediterranean diet and rich in plant based foods might protect
against diabetes can also be found in the Indian diabetes prevention
programme. That trial promoted a plant based diet (together with
increases in physical activity) and found a significant reduction in
the incidence of diabetes,28 although there are clear differences
between the Mediterranean and Indian food patterns. There is an
analogy between coronary heart disease and diabetes because
patients with type 2 diabetes and no coronary heart disease have a
risk of coronary heart disease similar to patients without diabetes
but with prior coronary heart disease.29 There is evidence that a
Mediterranean diet protects against coronary heart disease, and the
analogy between coronary heart disease and diabetes suggests that
this diet might also prevent diabetes. It has been shown to provide
protection against coronary mortality8 9 30 31 and the incidence of
non-fatal myocardial infarction.32 In addition, both cohort studies33
34 35 and randomised trials36 have found that adherence to a
Mediterranean diet protects against mortality in patients who
already have established coronary heart disease. [more
supporting background evidence]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion
4.The potential mechanisms explaining the protective effect of a Mediterranean die
on diabetes have been reviewed elsewhere.37 38 39 40 Two trials have shown that
virgin olive oil protects against insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome.6 7
Indexes of insulin resistance were significantly improved among participants
allocated to a Mediterranean diet rich in virgin olive oil. Olive oil is rich in
monounsaturated fatty acids, and a diet rich in monounsaturated fatty acids is
beneficial among those with diabetes and might lead to improved insulin sensitivit
and better lipid profiles than diets rich in carbohydrate.13 15 39 People allocated to
a Mediterranean diet secrete more glucagon-like peptide-1,16 a finding also seen in
animals.14 The non-fat minor components of virgin olive oil also exert a beneficial
effect on pro-inflammatory cytokines.40 41 42
Apart from olive oil, adherence to an overall Mediterranean-type food pattern is
related to lower plasma concentrations of inflammatory markers and markers of
endothelial dysfunction.43 44 These biomarkers are predictive of the future
occurrence of type 2 diabetes.45 46 In addition, a large cross sectional study
nested in the nurses’ health study found that increased adherence to a
Mediterranean diet was associated with higher levels of adiponectin,47 and higher
levels of adiponectin are associated with a reduced risk of diabetes.
[supporting evidence in the literature/biological mechanisms]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion




Limitations
The number of new cases of diabetes was small, despite the follow-up of several thousand
people for over four years. This small number of incident cases is a major drawback and can
compromise the statistical power of our study. Nevertheless, our participants had high
absolute levels of consumption of the typical food items of the Mediterranean diet, even
among those participants classified as poorly compliant (score <3). For example, among
those in the lowest category of adherence to the diet, the estimated mean daily absolute
consumption (g/day) of olive oil (12), vegetables (308), fruits (176), cereals (77), and legumes
(17) can be considered as healthy for the standards of nutritional epidemiological studies.
This high consumption of plant based foods in our cohort could be because our participants
were from a Mediterranean country and were highly educated and health conscious. The
small number of new cases observed in this study should therefore not be surprising. If the
Mediterranean diet is actually protecting against diabetes, we would expecta low incidence
in a young cohort (mean age is 37.8 years) with these characteristics. The low number of
observed cases precluded assessment of the specific role of single dietary factors because
we would have needed
…..
A potential limitation, inherent to every observational design, is the possibility of residual
confounding by unmeasured or unrecorded factors. Our major confounders, however, were
sex and age. Additional adjustment for other factors made only negligible changes in the
estimates, suggesting that residual confounding is unlikely.in the nurses’ health study found
that increased adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with higher levels of
adiponectin,47 and higher levels of adiponectin are associated with a reduced risk of
diabetes.
[Limitations—5 paragraphs!!]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
The Discussion


Conclusion
Our prospective cohort study suggests that
substantial protection against diabetes can be
obtained with the traditional Mediterranean
diet, rich in olive oil, vegetables, fruits, nuts,
cereals, legumes, and fish but relatively low in
meat and dairy products. The limited number
of cases of diabetes and the possibility of
under-reporting, however, requires that further
larger cohorts and trials are needed to confirm
our findings.
[Restatement of the findings—take home message]
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Discussion
The Discussion:
The answer to the key question asked
What’s new
The context
1.
2.
3.
•
4.
5.
6.
7.
How your results fit into, contradict, or add to what’s known or believed
Strengths and limits of the study
The “so what?”: implicate, speculate, recommend
Overall conclusion
Powerful finish
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Top 7
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
1. Peremptory v. preemptive
Peremptory = cannot be denied
Preemptive = action is one taken before an
adversary can act
He issued a peremptory order.
He ordered a preemptive war in Iraq.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
2. Subject v. patient
A subject is a volunteer.
A patient is under treatment by a doctor.
The subjects in our study took a quiz about love.
The patients in our study were being treated for
their stomach conditions.
Alternatives to “subject”: participants, volunteers,
men, women, postmenopausal women,
runners, smokers, etc.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
3. Strata v. stratum
“Strata” is plural.
“Stratum” is singular.
We analyzed the data, adjusting for the different
age strata.
I was only interested in the association in the
stratum of elderly subjects.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
4. Averse v. adverse
Averse means “opposed” and usually describes a
person’s attitude.
Adverse means “hostile, unfavorable, opposed”
but usually applies to situations, conditions, or
events—not people.
The bad weather has an adverse effect on my car.
I would not be averse to trying that new restaurant.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
5. Historic v. historical
Historic means notable in history.
--indicates that it in some way changed the
course of human events
Historical means relating to history or past events.
--not necessarily historic
The signing of the Declaration of Independence
was a historic moment in American history.
Professor Smith gave a historical lecture on the
evolution of toothpicks.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
6. Regardless vs. irregardless
Regardless: without regard for
Irregardless: informal blend of regardless and
irrespective; would actually mean “with regard
to” (double negative)
Use regardless!!
I go walking every day regardless of season or
weather.
The allowance is paid regardless of age or
income.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
7. Ultimate and Penultimate
Ultimate: last (from Latin, ultimare=“come to an
end”)
Penultimate: second to last (paene=“almost”;
ultimas=“last”)
The ultimate aim was to force his resignation.
The character was arrested in the penultimate
chapter, setting up the central tension of the
final chapter.
Scientific Writing, HRP 214
Homework for next time…
Assignments for Next Week
• Read:
•
Chapter 2 in Successful Science Writing
(3-units):
Write intro/background using what you learned in
this week’s lecture
Work on Letter to the Editor (due in two weeks,
along with Discussion section)