Real Talk: A Discussion of Discussions

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.

These dried saline pictures were a new adaptation I came up with during experimentation. The reason for these measurements is that we suspect our coatings may not be uniform.

 

These dried saline pictures were a new adaptation I came up with during experimentation.

The reason for these measurements is that we suspect our coatings may not be uniform.

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)

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)

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)