Summary one contains additional information that complements research findings on the role of gut bacteria in maintaining levels of blood lipids. For example, it provides information regarding the association between high levels of triglycerides and diabetes. Additionally, it identifies the methods of data collection used in research. Methods such as population cohort, microbiome data generation, and, which are missing in the second summary, helps to support the research findings. Moreover, it offers some logical explanations on the relationship between the quantity of gut bacteria and high levels of High-Density Lipoprotein.
Both summaries used the same type of data and results which probably suggest that the two read the same article. However, some major differences are worth mentioning. Titles of the two summaries are different and pass conflicting information. The title of the first summary means that the high amount of HDL is attributed to the presence of microflora in the gut. The other article uses the word ‘may’ meaning that there could be other factors than microbial flora that contribute to high levels of HDL.
Summary one can be improved in a variety of ways. Representation of results and methods in bullet or point form helps summarize information much easier. Secondly, summary one should stick to using a simple scientific language. Summary one contains too much use of English words that are not scientific. Some common mistakes are also made such as use of words like ‘great cholesterol’. High-density Lipoprotein is commonly known as good cholesterol and not great cholesterol. By using words like‘As far as I’m concerned,’ summary one personalizes information depicting a harsh tone. Scientific summaries use a friendly tone and avoid personalizing statements.