Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

pretty rough coming to terms with the software that you use weight. Do you have the same thing? Like it was the guinea pig one? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's guinea pig on it. Yeah, um, and have you decided if you're gonna use excel or graph add, I'm thinking of using graph a lot. Um, yeah, I haven't really used it before, but we use graph pad, and we did it as a group of maybe 56. and I'd really recommend if you've got people that, you know, doing it as a group, because I personally would have really, really struggled not doing it in a group. Um, okay. When you did the experiment, did you make some notes whilst you're doing it? Not many. To be honest, we've got the protocol from Annabelle and then just worked off that, um so I'd say maybe just is not the first thing that you're going to start writing your start with the data stuff that maybe just start by thinking back to the day and anything that went wrong or you would improve next time because I think they're quite like like, you know, when you talk about limitations It's quite good to speak about maybe specific limitations, not necessarily something that could be general to any experiment. I think in your experiment things that you notice because then that's a bit different to what other people might say. Um, I don't know what you think about that now. No, I agree. You want to just quickly go through abstract late summary And you just knew our top tips because I've got I've got mine open. And I can kind of just tell you all the comments that I got. So you don't four? Yeah, I did. Um, so some of the, uh, I definitely right there last because, um by the time you write it, you don't know exactly what to do. And it's not. Not really a pain to do all. Whereas if you're trying to do it first, you still trying to get your head around the experiment and everything? Um, I definitely say the last thing you do is write the abstract. Um, keep it really, really brief. In the results section, they really like new, including numbers. Um, so always give your just a lot of, like, numerical data. Yeah, pretty much it to be on strike. You have anything else? Uh um I think the key thing is what I've said about, like, get in as many numbers as you can in your results section of your abstract. So, for example, say how many data sets you can say doses of atropine that you had, um, say the max number, the concentration. Say, um, then like the results of everything, if you can, And like, a p value, Um, and then the other thing I would say is when, um, I had my like feedback so hard, you said a nice way to write your conclusions in your abstract and and And your actual conclusion is speak about the main finding, then, um, the key limitation, key limitation. Or like, say, there were several limitations blah, blah, blah, and then speak about the future. So those are like the three things you should touch on in a conclusion? Um, yeah, the abstract. So for the lay summary, um, I spent like a decent amount of time trying to figure out what the best way to word things were. It was, but at the end of the day, it's literally just about making it as simple as possible because the way that it's marked at least online is that they're literally just gone through skin reddit and picked out any jargon, um and then just said Oceana than that. So, I mean, obviously try and write it well, but the way they're gonna market is, for example, there's like, three comments on mine. I wrote Synthetic and they said, Oh, a little technical. Um, I said, Gastric, gastric emptying and they said to technical and I said musculature. And they said to technical everything else They said, Oh, good. But there was a couple issues with the wording, So really, all they're looking for is that it's like, completely understandable to like an 11 year old like you don't want it any any jargon or, um, and if you read the rest of mine, it does seem very simple. But like they could just hand pick all the words that use. That might be a little bit a little bit of technical, so just make sure you can do it. Yeah, yeah, I would say that as well. And then two other things is just they really like an analogy. Um, So, like a key and a lock or something like Think of something that's better. Do that. And then they also like, um, I don't know if so, I told you this, but they like, um subheadings, um, organize it. Um, they don't just have a long piece of text. Have subheadings. Um, yeah. Myself. Headings were what was this experiment and why was it carried out? And then what we found? They're my three. I prefer that, To be honest, mine was the intestines. Drugs that affect the intestines, our research, our experiment, our findings than the future. But I think it's nicer to be honest to do it. How and I've did it with the questions. Um, yeah. And also they really liked it in mind when I said that to model the way Paracelsus works in our bodies, we took guinea pigs more than testing as it closely resembles our own. Um, and they really liked that. We said I said it closely resembles our own. I don't know. You might want to put that in yours because it's probably the same Mark. Yeah, and then included abbreviations table. And that's a little pro tip to get your high marks because it's just a differentiator, like it doesn't really mean anything. But when only three people do it, it looks good. And just do that at the end. I really need to just go through, and it cuts words for you as well, which is nice at the end and then in terms of the background, it's quite sort of, um, limited for words. So a good way to get around that and you should definitely include is a figure. It's not one figure. Two figures. I think most people included one. No, actually, I think most Yeah, most people included one, but I think the people who did really well included, too, because you can include one figure that demonstrates the layers of the, um G I tract and then include another figure. That's about how the second messenger systems work. Um, because then you're using that to cut down how many words you have to say. And it also looks really good. Um, definitely do because yeah, Laura, you did too, didn't you? And you got a good Yeah, background. Also, when you're talk when you're doing a second messenger system, you know what we mean by the way when we're talking about these systems and like, yeah, is it the whole, like muscarinic receptor? Then what happens after that? How much detail did you go into with that? Like how so my, uh my whole section regarding that is process is controlled by the N s via the mind plexus. The main excitatory trying to make irresponsible is a ch blacks by aggravating blah, blah subtypes. But on the M three with some empty involvement despite different mechanisms, both stimulate intracellular calcium release inducing smooth muscle contraction and illegal illegal mortality. How was that? And then the figure, Um, but then in the legend for the figure you can put loads of like detail in about the sort of biochemistry of it without contributing to your word count is good. Um, also used by Orender for any image, any images to do with receptors because then you can say you made it yourself, and it looks way more smart than just one. You got off Google. Okay, um, I'm here to they asked. So had said that he wanted the abstract written in the style of the Lancet. Did he say, like, specific style for the, uh for the late Summary because I know, like on the Cochrane database, they have laid summaries a lot, but, uh, no, he didn't. If you had, um, did you have that could obviously be different for your year. But if you had the formative I see a three thing. You also write a lace summary, then? Yeah, yeah. If he's not mentioned anything, it won't be. And the only key thing that came out of how he wants to lay summary is he liked heading. Um, And he said to us like, as I've said, make it as simple as possible. And it's you're aiming at someone who's I think he said, I've got a degree, but not like in medicine. Not necessarily in science's. So, like, you can still use nice English, but just not sciences terms. Um, and, um, yeah, also, by by lance it does it just mean you have to include results and conclusion. I think he kind of meant like the subheadings, um that they use and just speaking in the terms that they kind of use. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. Do you guys have any examples from all the years too? Um, yeah, I've got a few from the year above, you guys and a few from I've got, like, Kieran's and Vivian's. Okay? Yeah. Uh, so, yeah. I mean, we did ours with Kieran as well. Yeah, I would say yeah. In terms of when you talk about, like, the he wants it in the style of, like a lancet abstract. It's just because there's, like, different kinds of abstract that you can have a structured absolutely like one. So it's just preparing to like that. Um, some journals don't want any headings in a abstract, whereas some do. Um, and I think for hours they did, um, want headings. Um, and then just so once you finished the background, um, before you then start listing your hypothesis and aims. They really like if you have a linking sentence, so you don't just jump into it. So, for example, I said, based on this background we develop, we developed the following hypothesis and aims because it can sometimes feel a bit disjointed if you then just suddenly have a heading saying hypothesis. Yeah, I said, based on this understanding, we constructed the following colon. It's little things like that that get you into like the high seventies and eighties because it's like just making everything go. Yeah. Um, pathology. Pardon, methodology. Want to go try? Uh, yeah. So in terms of the methods I had for subheadings, um, just regarding the specimen and the upper greatest drug preparation, then the protocol and then the data analysis and exclusion criteria with mine. Um, And to be honest, you want to make it as sure possible. I remember this is the one that this section is the one that I struggled the most with because you want to include so much. But you can't. Um, so the most words would be in the data health with an exclusion criteria section. Um and yeah, I don't know. Well, to say I mean, to be honest, my honest. Um, so advice here is Look at all your old years, Um, collate all the things you want to say. Just say it shouldn't take you that long because I don't think you'll I mean, do you know if your experiment has changed much compared to ours? Um, I think it's, uh I don't think it did. Uh, they're gonna use when you guys did. Larger in a similar Yeah. I mean, that's a blessing of farm is like, you can pretty much just copy hours. Um, just make sure it's specific to your thing. And also they There's a couple of things that Annabelle likes to include. Um, so I mean, I can send you mine and you'll build the comments. Um, it's it's stuff. Like I said, uh, the guinea pigs were sacrificed by cervical dislocation. And then she said she wanted me to include that, um, they're also had a severed femoral artery. Just pretty. Let's just look out the older years stuff because, um, I think Annabelle said that like, we could add the methods as like, an appendix to us because, like, everyone's going to be the same thing. I don't know if she said something like that. What? And then you don't need a message section at all. I think she did want section, but she didn't want you to say it like word for word, but I don't know. It's kind of said passing, but not really in any much detail. Yeah, that's what we had as well, everyone just in their appendix, you attach the actual protocol, but then in the right up itself. You just need to, like, briefly outline everything. Um, yeah, well, I mean, I don't I don't think you could do the whole of methods in si appendix, because then you can. That's what we did. We just attached to the No. I mean, you just don't need a method section, though, don't you? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Anything else for No. Yeah. Um, Okay. So, results, uh, I think me and Laura both had our first figure was a table with all the data. Uh, I have a table. I'm table. I think a lot of people have a table, but, um, and then log concentration response curve, um, and then a slid shield pot. Um, and then in the Philippine bar chart. Yeah. Um not really sure how much advice we can give on that is just usually again the library with people and crack it out. I can't pursue any of the stuff. I don't a graph that, but it's kind of thing you just learn, get it done. And if you have the same results as you make it also ask so hard because, like, shamelessly, because he will help you with whatever you want? Mhm. You guys have the forum with Sohag this year where you can ask any questions? Yeah, Yeah, just use that all the time because he answered every question, Um, in terms of, like, general things for the results section, just make sure you in the text speaks about every single figure. Like, say, you're just in brackets, figure whatever. And then in terms of the bigger legends, I think they're quite picky about it. Like they don't want it to be too long, but they also don't want it to be too short. Um uh, keep the keep the texts in your results section really, really snappy as well, because you should you should be using I can remember how much it was, but it's like an outrageously small amount of words to be using your results. Um, also at the beginning of your results, say a little sentence, like the memories had before. Um, So I started with 11 date steps, were averaged and normalized each carbohol comical concentration across all experiments and then went into and then showed the, uh, the figure legend and then the figure for the table. Yeah, I agree. They don't like it if you just have a like, you have to start it with some text. Okay, Um then in terms of the discussion, I think this is a lot of a lot of people didn't do this, but you should start the discussion with summary paragraph. So just summarizing the results. So every single figure that just summarize the main results and then go into each hypothesis one by one. Um, because they really like that. Yeah, definitely. Definitely. Do that as well. Because I really wanted to do that because I knew that was what? Uh, but then I just didn't have the word, so I took it out, and then, obviously, I just got hit with. You should start your discussion with the summary of your main findings and linked back to your hypotheses. Then discuss individual results in detail. So you because you won't be getting high high marks without it. Mhm. Um And then the way I split mine, I talked about Carbachol. Then I talked about atropine and the shield lock. Then I talked about the phentermine and then limitations again, limitations is similar to the methods. By reading all the years work, you can get such a good limitations. Um, sort of section banged out without really thinking about it. Um, the best. The only thing you need to do really is collate all of the older your stuff into the best form that you can and then go out on your own and find one or two extra niche points that make it your own, because everyone's going to have the same stuff. So if you just find one paper that you can, um, sort of reference that no one else has done with it And that's what I pick up as well, because they're reading, like, 30 of these. Yeah, um, I included two figures in my discussion, but I think most people just included one or none, But they liked that. I included some figures, and my figures were just showing, like a classical log concentration response curve. And then my other one showed a shield plot from another paper, just demonstrating that my p A to value was similar to theirs. Um, so you can include if your golf um, yeah, and then conclusion. Yeah. So it's a conclusion. Like, all your conclusions are gonna be pretty much the same. Um, I got selected for mine being a bit basic. Yeah. I'm not really sure how I go about changing that, but try and spice it up somehow. I think like the conclusion to be about your main finding, then the key limitation, then the future. So that's way. Sorry. What did you say? If I liked and he likes it, if you structure your conclusion, starting off with sort of your so say in conclusion and then your main finding, um or finding. So, for example, the speak about, um I can't remember what it was, but speak about your two main findings, then speak about what the main limitation was, or you can just say, however, due to the extensive limitations and small end number, accurate conclusions can be drawn. And then you can have a sentence about the future. So, like, future research should or could do this. Um, because then your sort of touching on everything. Okay. Mhm. You know what you're saying about Get older as well. Do you know the experiment was the same as what? The year above you did? Yeah. It's the same again. Okay. Um and so just coming back to what you said about in the background. You had a figure with the the bowel wall. What kind of thing was that? To illustrate just the layers. Um, it was literally so mine was like to read the figure legend. It was just a diagram modified from, um, Drake it out. I think that was from Grey's Anatomy displaying the four main layers of the GI tract. And then I said what the four main layers were so the serosa, blah, blah, blah, um, as well as the two main component components of the E n s, the myenteric and sub mucosal plexuses. So it's literally just situated four layers and then the innovation, okay, because then you don't have to wake up words on it. Yeah. Mhm. Mhm. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, that that makes sense. Thank you so much. Don't worry. No, don't worry. Anything else or, um, I didn't think so. If if you guys won't mind if we could have a look at your ones if that would be okay, that would be really helpful as well. Yeah. Do you want to just drop your email somewhere? Yeah. So, my shortcake, should I send in the chart? Uh, yeah. Did that work? Yeah. Uh, thank you so much. No worries. Don't worry. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye bye.