It's All in the Presentation

Hey readers!

It's been a really productive and fun week -- I edited others' papers, reduced the number of words in my paper, finished up making the final figures, created a first draft of my presentation and script, and visited my family in Memphis!

Savage meme, but I enjoyed my time in Memphis, especially eating Muddy's cupcakes with my cousins!

We started the week barely finishing my gargantuan paper, which weighed in at 8000 words and slowly was trimmed to less 6000 words! Thanks to Mrs. Haag for meeting with me repeatedly to trim the excess words. I think another few read-throughs tomorrow and Tuesday will put me within reach of the 5000 word limit. I'm particularly looking at the results section and methods section for cutting.

Salt bae -- more like adding 1k words oops... 

At the same time, I worked on creating a compelling presentation from my paper. I actually had a presentation that I had delivered at the American Physical Society Fall 2016 Meeting, which won an award for Best Talk. BUT THAT POWERPOINT WAS TRASH... Such a realization was one of those moments where you realize how much you've grown in AP Research. Having done so much on my own for this project, I have a new understanding of my research, so I thought of much better ways of conveying my information (not to mention replacing my barf-yellow background with a 1/cos(c) blood presentation template...). 

Oh yeah...

I focused on showing my research process and using animations/pictures/screenshots to take the audience as close to the research I conducted as possible. Specifically, I was particularly proud of my animation to show the ellipse-fitting in 3LCAA (let me know what you think). One thing I was wondering was, since I have basically 4 separate experiments -- what do you guys think of intermixing methods and results? As in, going experiment by experiment. I think that might provide some more continuity than I currently have and emphasize the research process, but I did want to stay consistent with the rubric. What do you think?

Talking about the rubric -- here's how I thought it broke down...

Row 1 is basically ensuring you are following a robust research process, by using the literature review to find the gap, employing the best methods to research this gap, and then drawing correct conclusions from your gap. I tried to make my gap, question, methods, and conclusions really apparent with their own slides here.

Row 2 is assessing the progression of your research from results to discussion to conclusion-- taking the data you took, realizing what it says, interpreting it into conclusions, and then stating the implications and importance of the conclusions (WITH GOOD EVIDENCE). I think that combining the results and discussion in my paper and presentation will give me a good start here. In my presentation, I will need to make sure to tie conclusions back to the data I collected though, as it can be easy to just rattle off some cool conclusions without support in the interest of time.

Row 3 examines if your hypothesis was rejected or accepted, how so, and why... Again, evidence is key, except this time linking findings from the Lit Review to the Discussion is key 🔑.  I focus on this point with hyper-hydrophilicity theory compared to the 3LCAA and RBS data we analyzed.

Row 4 assesses the quality of your visual aids and your presentation style. I tried to integrate lots of animations, diagrams, and explanations of apparatuses to keep the audience engaged. Moreover, I aligned my script to correspond to these animations, which will really allow me to excel here. My slides are a bit busy, but the nature of my project requires a graphs/tables with explanations and annotations.

Rows 5-7 evaluate the oral presentation. Based on the discussion I had in my meeting with Mrs. Haag, I know that in Rows 6 and 7 I need to emphasize the adaptations I had to do to finish my project, including performing analysis on a variety of fluids due to issues with human blood. Moreover, my research is extremely iterative, as I used 3LCAA to determine which samples to test with RBS. Such parts of the process are really important to emphasize. Such a response is crucial for Row 5, where I am asked to justify my choices. Overall, I need to use my slides and always point back to sources and data in my answers. Then, I should be good.

The plan for this week is to continue finessing my paper, perfect my presentation/script and start practicing, submit my final abstract, prep some oral defense questions, and work with my blog group... busy times ahead!

Always, though, we gotta remember to HemaDrop It Like It's Hot...

Cheers,

Yash

(796)

Feeding Back the Feedback: Paper-Writing and Updates

Hey readers!

This week was filled with some great progress, especially in articulating my research. As you may know, this blog become award-winning, courtesy of Mrs. Haag. Additionally, I became a finalist at Arizona’s Junior Science and Humanities Symposium for my oral presentation… unfortunately, I didn’t win though, but it was fantastic practice for my presentation, as I got to present a lot of my data in a twelve-minute presentation! I’m super excited for April 14^th, as I realized how fun oral presentations are.

Anotha oral presentation ... Major ket alert 🔑🚨

When I wasn’t working on my presentation or presenting, I was working on data analysis, which is essentially done now. The data analysis involved extracting the elemental composition from the RBS spectra we collected on saline. The power of these results is that, unlike canine blood or human blood, which have unknown exact compositions, we know the concentration of elements in saline. In this way, even though we didn’t plan on using saline, it has been really advantageous, because I am working on converting the elemental counts to concentrations. How this works is you have the number of atoms for certain elements. Then, you divide by Avagadro’s number to determine the number of moles of an element. Convert the moles into mass by multiplying by molar mass. Then, by dividing the mass by the volume (which we know because we applied the drops with a controlled-volume mechanical pipette), we can compare the concentration in the drop to the true concentration in the bottle. So, that’s a look at how I have been performing analysis… now to the main content of the post: the feedback on my paper and my preparation for the presentation.

By looking at most of my group members’ feedback (Thank you Gursajan and Ashwath!),

Get some rest, guys... I got us!! I love you! 

I was able to figure out the main problems with my paper:

First off, I found some key places to cut words in the literature review, including some repeated definitions (e.g., hydrophilicity), awkward transitions (e.g., properties of blood), and repeated parts about the mechanism of hyper-hydrophilic films acting on blood.

Although the methods were extensive and detailed, Ashwath made a point that I often explain concepts and techniques inaccessible to a lay person with slightly less esoteric jargon (but still esoteric). For these ideas, like Ion Beam Analysis, RBS, RBS data analysis, and even capillary sampling, I think that focusing on the input and output – only providing enough information for my reader to understand why I use it and what results it provides – is a good strategy to avoid wasting words and confusing the reader further. I was trying to get the reader to understand everything about every word in my project, but taking a more pragmatic approach to make sure the reader understands the concepts in relation to my research, but maybe not understand everything about all techniques and words (e.g., contact angle, RBS, damage curves, incident angle, rubefacient, etc). Because, after all, word count is a thing. I need to achieve this balance of explanations and providing just enough information to understand my results and project. I do need to expand on what certain concepts, like surface energy, are though…

My discussion section has negative energy right now... let's correct that!

Since results and discussions are usually together, Mrs. Haag and I decided to combine my results and discussion sections to save worda and prevent detached or repetitive explanations across the sections. Then, I will have a smaller conclusion section. In my discussion section for feedback from my group, I was just figuring out what my results meant myself, so the readability of the section suffered. It was too long, and I assumed a great deal of knowledge from the introduction. The alignment between the methods and the results also just wasn’t there. I’ve been focusing on re-writing my discussion into LaTeX and adding connections to my Lit Review and Methods, especially with me understanding my results much more now. I had to rewrite/re-portray much of the RBS data because of the amount of knowledge I assumed. Adding the new section of data should not take too many words, as it is just a derivative/expansion upon what I did earlier with the accuracy calculations. I am working on this section still, but it will be ready for my day in the peer edit group.

My conclusions are pretty solid, as I know the specific limitations of my experiment including the inability to perform RBS on all samples including the Si wafers, using different fluids, and lack of coating uniformity. Moreover, the uniformity of blood films on HemaDrop in this study demonstrates that future directions with other techniques apart from RBS are promising and necessary to detect molecules. This part of my paper was not ready for feedback in the last round, so if my groupmates could focus a bit on this too, I’d really appreciate it (especially the justifications of the limitations)!

Classic Khaled here...

Regarding the grading rubric, I believe this is how it break down right now:

Row 1: My literature review is pretty strong in conveying the significance of my research and creating a specific niche for my project. Moreover, there is a clear gap that my research fills both in the academic conversation of thin films, but also in clinically for blood testing. However, one aspect I should improve on (and you guys could look out for) is integrating this purpose and niche throughout my paper with my results. Such connections were lacking from my last draft, and I tried to add those.

Row 2: My sources do interact in conversation, but some of this interaction is lost due to the novel nature of my project. Particularly, the connection between hyper-hydrophilic films and thin films theory to blood testing needs to be clearer. I tried to articulate this well, but this could be a weakness for me. I do show the significance of each study to my research, and the reasoning in my literature review follows.

Row 3: All of my sources are academic papers or textbooks, so credibility is not an issue. I do need to make sure that I convince the reader of the relevance of the study with more information on the methodology of some studies. I tried to do so, but I also did not want to use up too much space, so please check for succinctness in these assessments.

Row 4: I think I nailed this explanation by demonstrating the importance of uniformity and describing how to calculate uniformity from the first paragraph of my methods section. Moreover, a quantitative method with qualitative observations is undoubtedly the best method for my research’s goal.

Row 5: My results are expanded upon, and I provide important and logical implications of both quantitative data and qualitative observations. However, what is missing here is the connection of the findings to something understandable to a lay audience. Please identify sections disjointed from the methods and non-understandable to you. The main problem areas are the 3LCAA data and the saline uniformity calculations.

Row 6: I think my discussion section is the weakest of my paper, so this is a row I need to work on. Finding important places to integrate clinical significance from my literature review would really improve readability and increase significance. I was pleased with my ability to interpret the graphs and providence evidence for claims due to the immersion I had in my research and how much I learned. However, if you do not understand a result interpretation or explanation (e.g., which sample had the highest electron acceptor energy), please let me know, because this part is extremely weak.

Row 7: My figures can be a little scattered and filled with information, but both Gursajan and Ashwath liked my subtitles and captions. I also provide both tables and graphs for RBS data, which is quite intuitive for the reader. I am happy with my figures, but if you see a better way of portraying data or plots, I’m all ears.

Row 8: LaTeX has my back on citations lol… I think I do a good job of integrating quotes while also paraphrasing. It is clear where these occur respectively, so I like this row.

Row 9: My vocabulary is precise, but terms like surface energy and Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry need to be defined in more simplistic terms. The terms I used are not enough for a lay audience to understand. I tried to fix most of this, but please look out especially for this, as I cut some words.

OF COURSE, please help me cut down words. That’s always a problem…

For my presentation, I’m pumped! I have a lot of practice articulating the significance of my research, but the weaker part of my presentation will be explaining the data in an understandable way while staying without losing the reader. In this way, I may have to choose specific data that I want to show and interpret well instead of just swamping the audience with data. I did this for JSHS, only presenting the human blood RBS data. Stylistically, my presentations are usually boring, and I have a problem with repeated hand movements, so I will need to focus on varying that. I really love hearing myself talk, and talking about HemaDrop, so the oral presentation should be lit.

We're getting there -- we're climbing!

Phew – lots of words, for lots of research... let's go!!

Cheers,

Yash

(1550)

RBS: Really Big Stuff

Hey readers!

It's been a crazy week, like always! Right now, we've basically finished the final experiment that I needed to have a complete set of data to answer my question. So, this week has been packed with 3 stages of research simultaneously: data collection, data analysis, and writing.

If you remember, at the beginning of my data collection stage, we were unable to do RBS (Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry) on human blood. However, since performing RBS and determining elemental composition of 2 different spots is crucial, I still collected as much data as I could using Balanced Saline Solution (which mimics intraocular humor, so it's a complex ionic solution like blood). On Thursday, we had a marathon 10 hour continuous RBS session to take a bunch of data. RBS is super awesome, so even though this post is about my paper, I wanted to show you guys some really cool pictures of samples:

Here's the organization system I created for my samples  with a $1.50 box from Joann Fabrics!
Each compartment has a 8 mm x 8 mm sample wrapped in a cellulose wipe, to prevent contamination.

Here is a sample in the vacuum chamber on the sample holder.
The laser beam shows where the ion beam will hit the sample!

Do you see that purple light?
That is the sample (an insulator) fluorescing when the ion beam hits it.

Since Thursday, I've been working as hard as I can to finish analyzing this new data, with 46 runs of 100,000 counts (ions) each to analyze. I calibrated the energies, and now I am looking at the data to overlay spectra and calculate elemental composition (uniformity). It will be done by tonight.

The data has been extremely interesting so far, and I have a lot to add to my results/discussion section about it. We took the approach of finding the composition of a bare slide, a slide with coating, and a slide with coating and a saline drop applied. 

Check out this cool plot overlaying 100k to 400k ions hitting 2 drops on the same sample! The "steps" represent elements' compositions (e.g., K, Ca, Na, and Si)

Visually, we can see that the compositions are similar across 8 spectra, especially in the overlay.
But, don't worry, I have quantitative calculations of uniformity as well.

It's really liberating to have this data finally, as I have had the opportunity to analyze data continuously without waiting on anything. 

Now that we've talked about where I am on data collection/analysis and what I've been up to, let's hone in on the paper!

Actually it's due tonight...

Since I am still analyzing some data, some of my results sections and discussion sections still need to be written up, since I need to fill in some numbers and draw a few more conclusions from the new analysis I have been working on. However, they will be completed within the next few days, in time for my editing spot on Thursday. 

So far, I am really happy with the robust dataset I have collected. I have 3 parts of my results, including (i) 3LCAA data on the surface energy of my samples, (ii) qualitative image analysis of saline drops, (iii) Ion Beam Analysis of canine blood, human blood, and saline. I think that the amount of data and analysis I have done really answers my question and can lead my reader through logically why I decided to use this three-pronged approach. Of course, lots of data means I have a lot to talk about in all of my sections. 

Let's just say this isn't big data, but the data sure is BIG ;)

Apart from being happy with the data I collected, I think that the connection between my methods and results section is really strong, specifically how I describe my data analysis. When I edited my paper at the beginning of the first trimester, I focused on aligning these parts very well and connecting the importance of uniformity in a clinical setting to the data in my experiment.  

Now, for the weaknesses and what to look for... 

Always word count.

Since my paper is already above the word limit without the new data, I definitely need to figure out sections or parts that are dispensable. Anything that can be made shorter would be greatly appreciated.

Moreover, I think that something I really need to be strong are the transitions between the results sections and justifications of looking at specific samples. In the beginning of the project, I set ambitious goals and planned a huge experiment. However, we encountered some obstacles, so my actual experiment did collect a bit less data. Therefore, I want to make sure that as a reader, the justifications of only performing RBS on certain samples is robust enough (apart from the weak, hey, I couldn't). I think using the previous 3LCAA data as a way to narrow down and select specific samples to RBS was a solid approach though. 

The transitions better be good, but not too explicit either...

Next, I think that identifying any extraneous information in the Lit Review or Methods that doesn't perfectly align with the slightly modified experiments I performed would be a major key 🔑  in cutting down my paper.

Finally, I wanted to make sure that I connected my research to the applications clearly in the discussion (e.g., implementing HemaDrop as a technology), as that is ultimately the significance of my research and will make my project more focused and digestible for all.

I tried to break up the dense post with some dank memes, so hope you enjoyed!

Entering the homestretch, so let's goooo!

Yash 🦁

(942)

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)