Abstract
Below is my lab report analysis, an assignment focused on comparing and contrasting two similar lab reports, against both each other and a standard set by a textbook
Lab Report Analysis
Tylor Cheng
ENGL 21007: Writing for Engineers
Dr. Sara A. Jacobs
March 21st, 2021
Lab Report Analysis
Introduction
The main focus of this analysis will be comparing and contrasting the two lab reports “Designing and testing scene enhancement algorithms for patients with retina degenerative disorders” and “Rabbit thyroid extracellular matrix as a 3D bioscaffold for thyroid bioengineering: a preliminary in vitro study.” which from now on will be known as Lab Report 1 and 2 respectively. The topics being discussed will be centered around the 8 main elements that comprise a standard lab report, those being the title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and reference, along with its given contextual information. Both lab reports are also sourced from the same database, Biomedical Engineering Online.
To start both have a detailed title describing the general idea of their respective research topics. Lab Report 1 however goes more in-depth with its simpler title describing the main audience of the research and actions the researchers plan to do, such as with the part in its title saying “for patients with retina degenerative disorders.” Here it informs us that the main audience the research is intended for is individuals inflicted by retina degenerative disorders. Lab Report 2 instead opts for a more complex and specific title describing the planned result of its research with its “Rabbit thyroid extracellular matrix as a 3D bioscaffold” sections, which details the desired result of the experimentation process. Both are effective titles that provide the relevant search terms necessary to be located in a database if desired.
Following the title is the abstract and both reports provide sufficient information detailing future sections in the paper to inform the reader, briefly about the main points. Included in both are compressed versions of the background, methods, results, and conclusions, Report 2, however, includes a keywords section listing specific words. The introduction for the pair both share the driving factor behind the research with Report 1s being “In particular, Age Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) and Retina Pigmentosa (RP) diseases are of interest to this study.” and Reports 2s as “Mechanistically, the adoption of thyroid bioengineering requires a scaffold that shares a similar three-dimensional (3D) space structure, biomechanical properties, protein component, and cytokines to the native extracellular matrix (ECM).”. The same applies to the pairs results and conclusions, where both state the main findings of their research and possible future applications, Report 1s being that certain programs of theirs are better suited for different situations as stated “Results show that Tinted Reduced Outlined Nature (TRON) and Edge Overlaying algorithms are most beneficial for dynamic scenes such as motion detection. Image Cartoonization was most beneficial for spatial feature detection such as face detection.” and Report 2 claiming that their protocol can help manage thyroid disease via transplantation supported by their claim of “The adoption of our protocol to generate a decellularized thyroid scaffold can potentially be utilized in transplantation to manage thyroid diseases through thyroid bioengineering.” The methods and materials are around the same but Report 2 includes precise measurements of the materials used including “24 male New Zealand white rabbits were used in this experimental study.” while Report 1 did not.
Next comes a lengthy introduction from each of them detailing the main reason behind their research, along with previous research that has occurred and how successful it was, along with what each of them hopes to achieve in the results of the experiment. Both of them start with general information regarding the history of their respective illness or problems, with Lab 1 beginning with “There are thought to be 38 million people suffering from blindness worldwide [1], and this number is expected to double over the next 25 years … with 1 in 3 over the age of 75 being affected with some form of AMD.” and Lab 2 stating “Several diseases have been associated with the thyroid gland and causes various medical conditions … that affects the intelligence development and impairs physical growth, or be an acquired condition, such as thyroid cancer, surgery, and trauma.”
Next both describe previous treatments and experiments to combat the issue at hand with Report 1 talking about “treatment such as antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for exudative age related macular degeneration (wet-AMD)” and “Electronically enhanced visual aids have been proposed which offer a number of distinct advantages over conventional low vision aids in low vision rehabilitation”, while Report 2 states “the main treatments for hypothyroidism are hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and thyroid gland transplantation.” and describes how the main issue on previous research was “the preparation of 3D biocompatible scaffolds has proved to be the major challenge.” Following the standard format they both detail in a few lines the small summary of the methods they plan to employ in their research that sets them apart from previous studies.
Lab 1 then goes on to discuss how previous studies relied on older techniques, the flaws with them, and states that they have developed methods to solving the issue at hand with “Most of the work described above has been based on two main techniques; image resizing and edge overlay. However, both approaches rely on edge extraction techniques which can amplify irrelevant information … In this paper: we developed three image enhancement techniques which are Image Cartoonization, Edge Overlaying and Tinted Reduced Outlined Nature(TRON) algorithms, … which we believe will have advantages over edge only images as it maintains chromatic information.” Report 2 also does this but to a lesser extent by stating that previous techniques were not up to par and how they aim to improve on it with “However, up to date, accepted standardized thyroid decellularization protocol is lacking … Therefore, in our study, we selected the immersion/agitation decellularization protocols to decellularize the thyroid gland.” Both reports again follow the standard formatting and include ample information regarding the subject matter, previous trials, and solutions, and end their introductions with a brief description of their applied techniques.
What should follow next in a standard formatted lab report is the methods and materials, and Report 1 does follow this format, on the other hand, Report 2 follows its introduction with its results section, which normally should appear near the end. For the purpose of comparing and contrasting the two reports, this abnormality will be overlooked, and Report 2s methods and materials will be analyzed. Moving forward Report 1 goes in-depth regarding its process throughout the whole report and states the researchers thought process throughout. Multiple equations were given with an explanation on its purpose and images were provided frequently visually demonstrating the experimentation, from what it seems every step of the procedure was stated in this section. Granted multiples methods and trials were applied but, explanations were given along every step as can be seen in this quote “We, therefore, use a non-linear anisotropic smoothing technique to eliminate noise and low importance textures, while avoiding smoothing across object boundaries. It is an iterative process which progressively smoothes the image while maintaining the significant edges by reducing the diffusivity at those locations having a larger likelihood to be edges [26]. The process is defined as follows: It(x) denotes the image intensity at position x and time t(I0(x) is the image at time t = 0 which is the original); ∇ is the gradient operator, and div is the divergence operator; c(x) is the diffusion coefficient (c(x) approaches 0 near edges, whereas it approaches 1 in homogeneous regions).”
Here it details the reasoning behind the technique used along with the calculation used for it and what each variable represents in the overall equation. Report 2 follows a similar format but includes fewer calculations, visual representations, and explanations in favor of more precise measurements and uniform procedures. An example of this can be seen in the first step of their experiment “Briefly, the New Zealand white rabbits were anesthetized using intraperitoneal injection with 6% sodium pentobarbital (0.5 ml/kg) … were placed in the Petri dish and mechanically agitated by the shaker before their complete immersion in 1% (v/v) SDS.” As seen Lab 2 follows a more uniform and mathematical approach when it comes to detailing its methodology when compared to Lab 1s more expansive and explanative procedure. A possible explanation behind this could be to allow the experiment to be repeated by peers, based on the report’s uniform methodology and precise measurements such as the ones shown above. Overall both reports fully detailed their materials and methodology, albeit in different styles, however, while Report 1 followed the standard format of including their materials and methods after the introduction, Report 2 did not and instead placed their method section near the bottom and their results section after the introduction.
The section that should appear should be the results section and here Report 1 followed the format, but Report 2 again deviated from it and instead opted to place their discussion section up next. While it does sequentially insert its discussion section after the results section, it does not follow the standard format of a lab report which usually, includes its results section here. Report 1 also combined its results and discussion sections, but for comparative purposes, only the results section will be analyzed here. Both reports present the evidence gather from and throughout the experiment, along with visual representations and calculations. Each of them describes the before and after effects on their chosen variable, for Report 1 they report on which procedure they found most effective in a certain scenario such as “We can see that Cartoonization has the highest efficiency in detecting faces which was expected as Cartoonization enhances the contrast between boundaries while keeping the color information in the scene intact. Edge overlaying on cartoon images is less effective compared to Cartoonization in detecting faces.” along with a brief explanation of the possible reason for it. Report 2 on the other hand talks more about their statistical findings compared to a constant variable as evidenced by “The in vitro cytotoxicity assay of the control group and DTG scaffold groups were performed by CCK-8 assay with HTFCs. As a result, the absorption value at 24, 48, and 72 h did not show a significant difference between DTG scaffolds and the native thyroid gland” When compared to Report 1 the results from Report 2 are more mathematical in nature a trait that it shares with its methodology section. Both also frequently used graphs and charts to help visually explain their data, along with images displaying the changes in between steps as can be seen below, the left one belonging to Report 1 and the right Report 2.
In terms of sectional formatting and given information, both Report 1 and Report 2 follow the standard format of a lab report, but Report 2 placed the result section below their introduction.
Up next is the discussion section and Lab 1 technically followed the format as it is mixed in with its results, but it appears after the results have been stated. Due to Report 2s unorthodox formatting, the conclusion is in place of the discussion, but only the discussion will be analyzed. Here researchers from both reports drew their conclusions based on the data they gathered from the results and for Report 1 the researchers managed to conclude which procedure worked best under different conditions, along with patient preference, and concluded that their technique was an improvement on previous studies as evidenced by their claim “Patients from both groups preferred the processed videos over the unprocessed in enhancing the recognition and motion of objects. Figure 17(b), shows that the patients with CS between 0.4:1.2 and VA greater than 0.9 show a strong preference for the TRON algorithm. We can therefore conclude that TRON algorithm is the most useful in detecting objects which are moving (P < 0.0336) … so that it keeps very high contrast difference between moving objects and background.” A similar situation occurred in Report 2 where researchers managed to determine based on their results when compared to previous experiments that their method of procedure procured more successful and efficient results as stated “In our study, we have demonstrated the DTG scaffolds with characteristics of native thyroid, have good biocompatibility in vitro, and can promote thyroid cell proliferation with important significance in thyroid organ bioengineering and regeneration. We have explored its properties preliminary in vitro, and we will implant the scaffold cell co-culture system in vivo and examine thyroid hormone expression next.” However when compared to Report 1s discussion Report 2 consisted partly of their process throughout the experiment and observations they witnessed such as “ The HTFCs adhered to the DTG scaffolds and subsequently infiltrate deeper into the scaffolds where the cells preserved the TPO expression 3 days post-seeding. The TPO expression declined after 1 week, probably due to deficiency in essential hormones.”
The final to last essential element is the conclusion and aside from Report 2s formatting, both were about the same and summed up the majority of their findings and thoughts throughout the lab. Report 1 talks about its procedures employed and which one was the most effective along with how some could work better in some scenarios with “Results from this model show that TRON and edge overlaying algorithms are very useful in detecting spatial features in dynamic scenes and perceiving the edges of simple objects in static scenes. Image Cartoonization improves face detection.” They conclude their thoughts with how they think their research can affect the long-run and how they can lead the way for future eye prosthetics “In the long run, we believe image enhancement algorithms such as that we present could perform the basis of the front end processing interface for retinal prosthesis [49] or new forms of visual assistive devices.” Lab 2 states their success and how their experimented differed from their beginning thoughts. “In our study, we successfully developed a thyroid gland decellularization protocol that uses the immersion/agitation method. However, thorough characterization, it demonstrated that the DTG scaffolds preserved native 3D spatial structure, biomechanical properties … Therefore, a decellularization scaffold is likely to serve as a platform for thyroid regeneration and transplant.” Both fit the standard format of a lab report conclusion and state how they found it successful and as possible solutions to the problems they imagined it for. For the final element reference, both lab reports are pretty much identical and follow the same format. They both have their references in list form and give credit where credit is due, as well as correctly citing all the sources used throughout their report.
In conclusion although Report 2 Does not follow the conventional format of a lab report, it can still be considered as such due to the fact the sections it contains follow the standard format of a usual lab report. Report 1 is considered a lab report since it follows the format in both its section organization and the actual contents in its sections, containing the needed material to make each section its designated section. The reason I feel like the authors from Report 2 decided to move their results up is, they feel as if the results needed to be look at first before understanding the rest of the report. Possibly to highlight their research as they felt that it could revolutionize the biomedical field or along the lines of that.
Works Cited
Weng, J. I., Chen, B., Xie, M., Wan, X., Wang, P., Zhou, X., … Chen, C. (2021, February 9). Rabbit thyroid extracellular matrix as a 3D bioscaffold for thyroid bioengineering: a preliminary in vitro study. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-021-00856-w
Al-Atabany, W. I., Memon, M. U. A., Downes, S. M., & Degenaar, P. A. (2010, June 18). Designing and testing scene enhancement algorithms for patients with retina degenerative disorders. New York City. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-9-27.
