Hey readers!
Well, we've
moved web addresses due to a rule change, but the research is the same. In case
you forgot who the author of this blog was, I'm Yash ______ (sorry, can't
disclose my last name).
Phew, now that
I've assured that my identity is completely anonymous, let's get down to
business...
It's been a
great week filled with analyzing data and writing some results. At the
beginning of the week, I was struggling to see the best way to portray my data
both in terms of graphs and transitions between sets of experiments. By talking
to Mrs. Haag in my meeting and Dr. Herbots daily, along with taking a step-back
to view my project as a whole, I have been working on writing out the
transitions between sections and connecting everything back to my main purpose:
demonstrating the viability of our solid microliter analysis technique and
determining the optimal preparation method.
My results
follow the following order: (i) Measuring Sample Surface Energy via 3LCAA to
Characterize Hydrophilicity, (ii) Quantitative Measurements of Dried Saline
Drops to Determine Coating Uniformity, and (iii) Performing Ion Beam Analysis
on Various Fluids (Saline, Canine Blood, and Human Blood) to Determine Fluid
Film Uniformity.
|
Some of the data
I've gotten has been a bit unexpected and hard to make conclusions from, like
this:
![]() |
That's a low correlation :( |
But, I've found
that some null results are results themselves, and I have a lot to bring up in
my discussion. So, without further ado, let's talk about the discussion
section!
The sources I
used to delve into my discussion section were:
1.
Hofmann, Angelika H. Scientific
Writing and Communication: Papers, Proposals, and Presentations. (2017).
(Textbook on scientific writing that
my dad graciously let me borrow.)
2.
RELATIVELY
HEALTHY 17 YEAR OLD INDIAN MALE et al. “Electrolyte Detection by Ion Beam
Analysis, in Continuous Glucose Sensors and in Microliters of Blood Using a
Homogeneous Thin Solid Film of Blood, HemaDrop™.” MRS Advances (2016):
1–7.
(Paper
proposes a new technology and tries to demonstrate uniformity of samples with
RBS and PIXE. Purely quantitative)
3.
Thomas,
A. et al. "On-line desorption of dried blood spots coupled to hydrophilic
interaction/reversed- phase LC/MS/MS system for the simultaneous analysis of
drugs and their polar metabolites." Journal of Separation Science 33, 873
(2010).
(Paper
discusses the benefits of a new technology for analyzing blood spots with
liquid chromatography... presents specific chromatograms with detailed figures
including models of the samples. Employed mixed methods.)
4.
Depciuch,
Joanna et al. “Phospholipid-Protein Balance in Affective Disorders: Analysis of
Human Blood Serum Using Raman and FTIR Spectroscopy. A Pilot Study.” Journal
of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 131 (2016): 287–296.
(Paper involving the analysis of blood with spectroscopic techniques similar to RBS. Useful, as it shows the best way of portraying Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry Spectrometry -- which I have to do. Purely quantitative)
(Paper involving the analysis of blood with spectroscopic techniques similar to RBS. Useful, as it shows the best way of portraying Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry Spectrometry -- which I have to do. Purely quantitative)
5.
Acharya,
Ajjya et al. “HemoClear: A New Thin Fluid Film Device to Control Blood Clot
Formation.” American Physical Society Fall Meeting - Four Corners. 59,
(2014).
(Biomedical engineering thesis at Barrett Honors College of a fellow intern from the Herbots lab. This results section is very useful, as Ajju Acharya discusses the importance of a new technology called HemoClear, uses spectroscopy to measure elemental composition and qualitative observations to compare samples. Used mixed methods)
(Biomedical engineering thesis at Barrett Honors College of a fellow intern from the Herbots lab. This results section is very useful, as Ajju Acharya discusses the importance of a new technology called HemoClear, uses spectroscopy to measure elemental composition and qualitative observations to compare samples. Used mixed methods)
Overall, I
realized that if the introduction is like a funnel, where we start general and
identify the specific gap we want to investigate, the discussion is like a
pyramid, where the larger generalizations and implications from the specific
research you conducted.
![]() |
Discussions are basically pyramid schemes. |
All of the discussions started with stating the initial purpose of the study and connected them to interpretations of key findings in the study. For instance, #5 clearly described from the first paragraph the new HemoClear technology as solving the problems associated with clotting, connecting the results of tests with spectrophotometers to the properties of the new device. Similarly, #3 connects tests with a new type of high performance liquid chromatography to the initial problem of trying to identify composition of metabolites in blood.
After relating the
most important findings to the initial purpose of the study and providing
simple supporting evidence, it’s important to compare and contrast to findings
in previous studies. Since my project is more of descriptive project
(exploratory in nature and characterizing HemaDrop™), I can converse with the
error values of current techniques and also previous attempts (who doesn’t love
ragging on Theranos?)
![]() |
Savage Theranos meme... probably too savage. |
But seriously,
conversing with sources from the literature review is crucial to building the
base of the pyramid and applying the findings to the general field and a larger
audience. #4 does a great job of showing the new information capable of being
gathered from Raman spectroscopy compared to previously used methods. Moreover,
in this comparison with previous studies, ordering the results section from
most to least importance is crucial, as most often read the beginning of the discussion
only. #2, although slightly rough and with grammar mistakes, does a good job of
explaining the results for a lay audience and generalizing results with
hypotheses. These generalizations of the data are really what oher researchers
care about.
Finally, the
last paragraph should sum up the most important results and the significance of
the work. One thing that #1 really imprinted on me was connecting results to
their clinical significance, as that’s ultimately what patients and medical
professionals want to hear about. In this way, I can make my project
digestible, significant, and accessible to all. Practical advice and
applications along with future directions (e.g., new spectroscopic techniques
in vacuum to analyze HemaDrop™ films) are of course really strong to close
with. All the studies did a good job of showing these implications.
I’m really
excited to write my discussion with this new resource from my dad, as it has an
amazing checklist for editing (e.g., it asks if past tense was used for
completed actions/results and present for rules and true statements).
I do have a bit
more of data collection to do with the saline in particle accelerator. However,
the calculations for uniformity are set up on spreadsheets, so I should be
ready to get those results quickly.
That’s it for
the discussion!
Excited to start
finishing the paper (except jk… I mean enter the grueling editing process)!
Cheers,
Yash ________ (fill in the blank!)
(1079)
Yash _______ ,
ReplyDeleteIt's morning here in Denmark so do not be alarmed by the ungodly hour I'm posting this. You seem to have a great direction for your discussion section. Each of the other discussions followed the same general format, so that seems like the best format for you to follow. Make sure to integrate prior research into your findings as clearly and rigorously as possible. I'm excited to see how it turns out.
Looks like I beat Dr. Herbot to the comments section this time. Although, Max had to ruin that coveted "first to comment" position for me this week.
ReplyDeleteBut, I rather enjoyed reading your blog, not only because of the return of the RELATIVELY HEALTHY 17 YEAR OLD INDIAN MALE, but also because you have a very clear idea of what you would like to express in the discussion section. Remember to connect your conclusion back to your sources in the literature review to make your paper more cohesive, especially with the generalizations the readers care about.
Good luck in finishing up your results, writing your paper, and starting the edited process.
Hey Yash _ _ _ _ _ _ d,
ReplyDeleteDid I reveal too much? I think its really great that you have a concrete model to base your own discussion section off of (including a paper from a healthy indian male "just like you"). I think because of the content of your research it is incredibly important, like you mentioned, to connect it back to clinical significance so the importance isn't lost to specifics and technical jargon. I think the discussion section is all about connecting back to the purpose as much as you can and the overall significance, so now that you have that done you are good to go! Also transitions! And don't worry about some results not really making sense or seeming like a result, no result is still a result ironically. Your plan seems pretty good and it is great to hear you are almost done with the results!
I'm dying. I can't breathe with this name stuff. You guys are hilarious.
Delete