Discussion Requirements
Go to Pubmed and search for research articles on a topic of your choice by entering the name of a disease or organism in the search field. Once you have a list of papers you can manage your results by using the various filters running down the left hand side of the screen. You can filter for an article by type, such as review, or publication date such as the past 5 years only. To select open-access (free) articles, click on the filter for ‘free full text’
Open 2-3 articles from your search and for each of them locate the different sections (abstract, introduction, results, discussion, materials and methods). The goal(s) and conclusion(s) are often found in the last paragraph of the introduction and discussion, respectively, as well as in the abstract.
Without reading the full article or trying to understand it, locate the goal(s) and conclusion(s) of the study.
Based on your search, briefly discuss in one paragraph (at least 300 words) the advantages and/or disadvantages of having a common structure for scientific research articles. You may, for instance, refer to the scientific method or compare to other types of articles.
This discussion assignment will describe the advantages and/or disadvantages of having a common structure for scientific research articles based on my research for HPV. Here are two articles I found in PubMed. I will explain the goals and conclusions of those articles.
① Biological and clinical aspects of HPV-related cancers
Goals
The authors discuss the current knowledge regarding HPV-related cancers, current screening and treatment options, as well as DNA damage response-related biological aspects of the HPV infection and clinical trials in this article (Szymonowicz et al., 2020).
Conclusions
As DNA repair processes in tumor cells are affected, The authors performed an additional mRNA expression analysis, including DNA repair genes within HPV-positive and HPV-negative HNC61 (Szymonowicz et al., 2020). As a result, most of the genes, except for PRKDC and RNF168, showed higher expression in HPV-positive HNC, and their analysis uncovered additional high rates of alterations in the BRCA1 gene in HPV-positive HNC samples (Szymonowicz et al., 2020). It means The high alteration rate of both means a HPV-mediated facilitated HRR in HPV-associated HNC cancers (Szymonowicz et al., 2020). Additionally, the authors explain the various approaches to treat cancer caused by HPV in this article.
②HPV Associated Head and Neck Cancer
Goals
The author asserted that HPV positivity is strongly correlated with Head and neck cancers (HNCs) and that such tumors should have a distinct management approach (Spence et al., 2016). This research focuses on the importance of molecular and clinical evidence for defining the role of HPV in HNC and the clinical impact of HPV status as a biomarker for HNC, and they tried to find a distinct management approach (Spence et al., 2016).
Conclusions
"HPV has become a recognized oncogenic driver in HNC, and the incidence of HPV+ HNC, particularly HPV+ OPC, is on the rise, with significantly improved treatment response and survival rates in comparison to HPV− HNC" (Spence et al., 2016, para.17). Therefore, "clinical management of low-risk HPV+ HNC may require unique treatment approaches focused on de-intensifying the current standard of care therapies" (Spence et al., 2016, para.18).
Next, I briefly discuss in one paragraph the advantages and/or disadvantages of having a common structure for scientific research articles based on my search. Firstly, both articles I found in PubMed had a common structure for scientific research articles. The authors raised the issue and clarified the goal, which is to clarify through the research. They explained the facts that are already known and considered them with further research and data. Both made conclusions that HPV is an oncogenic driver and considered further treatments. One of the advantages of having a common structure for scientific research articles is that readers are familiar with the style, so it is easy to read and understand. For example, we know where to read to quickly judge the article's content, where the author's main claim is written, where the conclusion is written, future issues clarified through research, etc. I think it is beneficial in the broad field of medicine. On the other hand, I think it might also have disadvantages having a common structure for scientific research articles. Many articles describe the parts that have already been clarified, and it may not be easy to write useful articles that can bring a lot of new information to the reader. Even so, I think the benefits of maintaining the same structure are still greater. Science and technology are improving day by day, and the number of newly discovered facts is increasing dramatically. I think how easy it is to access such information for healthcare professionals and medical students will determine the future development of medical technology. When I first accessed PubMed, I was surprised that a well-known Japanese company provided a service that allows you to search and browse article titles and abstracts in Japanese by entering search Japanese words in PubMed. Many medical professionals in Japan are not fluent in English, but they can quickly access and learn new discoveries and advanced technologies in another country through this tool.
In conclusion, the advantage of having a common structure for scientific research articles is that readers are familiar with the style, so it is easy to read and understand. How easy it is to access new discoveries or advanced technologies for healthcare professionals, and medical students will determine the future development of medical technology.
References
Spence, T., Bruce, J., Yip, K. W., & Liu, F. F. (2016). HPV Associated Head and Neck Cancer. Cancers, 8(8), 75. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers8080075
Szymonowicz, K. A., & Chen, J. (2020). Biological and clinical aspects of HPV-related cancers. Cancer biology & medicine, 17(4), 864–878. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0370
댓글