Advanced Hypertensive Heart Disease in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats

I’m have a review paper that I have to analyse it (not sumrise) in one page poster presentation (PowerPoint)

My topic is:
Advanced Hypertensive Heart Disease in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats

Lisinopril-Mediated Regression of Myocardial Fibrosis
Christian G. Brilla, Luiz Matsubara and Karl T. Weber
Originally published1 Aug 1996https://doi.org/10.1161/01.HYP.28.2.269Hypertension. 1996;28:269–275

My type of article is:
Article #2: Experiments conducted in animals (before the drug was approved /
marketed), which helped characterise the drug target and validate its promising
therapeutic potential.

Important note: Your poster will only have room to show 2 or 3 results figures. It
is only these figures that must be in line with the ‘Article type’, not the overall
article as a whole.
o In other words, an article may include 10 results figures, and only 2 of them
might be experiments conducted in cells and in line with Article #1. This is
completely fine to use – you will present and describe only the figures /
content that is relevant to your article type.

Use PowerPoint to prepare your poster, with the following formatting:
• Go to “Design” tab, select “slide size”, select “custom”
o Width = 100cm
o Height = 60cm
This is smaller than a usual poster, but this
size is more manageable and will still give you
the same preparation experience

• Minimum font sizes (Calibri or equivalent; assuming the above page size)

o Title = Minimum 60 pt, bold (This text is taken exactly as appears in
paper)

o Authors = Minimum 30 pt

o Author affiliations = Minimum 18 pt

o Section headings (i.e. “Introduction”) = Minimum 36 pt, bold.

o General / all other text = Minimum 20 pt

• Graphical alignment and consistency is important
• MUST be pdf file, less than 20 MB (may need to compress images)

Physically / graphically divide your poster into sections (using boxes, border
lines, colours, etc – but don’t “over‐do” it, maintain consistent themes)
o At the top (these sections as they appear in your article)
 Heading
 Authors (with foot note symbols for affiliations)
 Affiliations (can minimise text if shared portions of affiliations)
o Introduction
o Methods
o Results
o Discussion
o (References, in it’s own section. Select 4 – 6 total of the most relevant
papers from the whole paper, and only BRIEFLY list here with the
minimum of details required for someone to search for them:
1. Brown T, et al, 2015, J. Neurosci. doi:10.9758/cpn.2022.20.1.135
First author, et al (if more than 1 author), year, journal, doi
In text citations – number (1)

The right balance between images and text needs to be met (by far the most
common flaw is being too text‐heavy)
• You don’t need to show ALL of the research figures, or even mention ALL of
the concepts in the article – in fact, it is unlikely you will be able to ‐ prioritise
and only present the 2 or 3 findings that best relate to your article type, and
the relevant introduction / methods / discussion that relates to them only.
• Therefore, select your article carefully – make sure your 2 or 3 results figures
are in line with the article type. It is also best if they are somewhat different
techniques / experiments, that relate to each other (i.e. if possible, tell a
sequential logical story where the first experiment leads into the second; or
where they compliment each other well).
• Only include introduction / methods / discussion information that relates to
your figures – rather than to the entire article as a whole (which might have
many additional figures that you are not displaying).
• In addition to the 2 or 3 Results figures, you should include at least 1
(recommend 2 or even 3) relevant figures that help the Introduction,
Methods and/or Discussion.

Figures can be cut‐and‐pasted (print‐screen and crop is fine) and can be
modified to exclude un‐necessary information for example.
• Keep good resolution.
• Results figures (2 or 3) ‐ These figures should be from the selected paper.
• Introduction / methods / and/or discussion figures (1 ‐ 3), a figure from
another source might be appropriate, or constructed by you (i.e. timeline), or
from the selected paper.
• ALL TEXT NEEDS TO BE IN YOUR OWN WORDS, (apart from poster heading,
authors, affiliations and references), otherwise this constitutes plagiarism.
• Methods in particular will need to be greatly abbreviated. You need to
understand the technique, and only describe the essential elements (i.e. to be
able to understand the study / figures)
• Dot points generally work well
• Results text usually resembles brief figure legends
• It is important to highlight the main results somehow, e.g. with bold text when
otherwise stated, or as separate dot points

Markings:
Poster File: Visual Appeal = 20%
Poster File: Content Selection = 20%
Poster File: Content Description = 40%
Audio File: Verbal Description = 20%

Is judged on the following 13 categories:
i. Consistency;
ii. Spacing;
iii. Alignment;
iv. Formatting;
v. Colour scheme;
vi. Section distinctions;
vii. Minimisation of text;
viii. Visual highlighting of main points;
ix. Overall layout / structure.
x. General visual appearance;
xi. Sizing;
xii. Resolution,
xiii. General use.

Poster File: Content Selection = 20%
Is judged on the following 4 categories:
i. How well the Results figures relate to the ‘article type’;
ii. How well the Results figures complement each other;
iii. How well other (non‐Results) figures convey relevant information,
and;
iv. How well other (non‐Results) figures complement the results.

Poster File: Content Description = 40%
Is judged on the following 7 categories:
i. The level of detail provided;
ii. The clarity of descriptions;
iii. The scientific level it is pitched at;
iv. The way in which text complements figures;
v. The prioritisation, weighting and highlighting of major points;
vi. The structure and logical narrative flow, and;
vii. Referencing.

Audio File: Verbal Description = 20%
Is judged on the following 4 categories:
i. The selection and emphasis of prioritised content;
ii. The balance between summary, detail, and repetition of text;
iii. The clarity of descriptions and ease to follow, and;
iv. The overall narrative flow and connection between sections.

introduction:
.What is the receptor (or enzyme, etc), and what is it’s potential relevance to a
particular disease?
• What is the gap in knowledge that this study addresses? What is the aim of
this study (or the portion of it that you have selected to present)? Hypothesis?
• A figure/image can sometimes be helpful (either from the selected paper, or
from an external source). This might simply be an image of the drug, or may
summarise the gap in knowledge, or study aims.

method:
Very brief summaries are all that can be included, however, enough detail
needs to be provided to allow understanding of the figures. Important to
PRIORITISE what information is ‘essential’, and what is not – selection of an
appropriate paper is crucial, as some experimental techniques might be too
complicated to adequately describe.
• If understanding of an experimental timeline, experimental groups etc is
required and difficult to understand from text, preparing your own graphical
representation (if none is provided in the article) can help.
• Linking the methods to the figures can also help, and avoid overlap in detail
within methods versus results sections. (It is often appropriate to include
some methods content within the results section).

results:
• Text should be minimal, and compliment figures; avoid ‘overlap’, or detail that can be
easily seen from the figure anyway.
• Figures are often the attention‐getter for an audience. If your figure is a beautiful
microscope image or 3D molecular reconstruction, don’t be afraid to make it quite
large.
• Make sure the main findings are highlighted (within the descriptive results text, or
stated as separate dot‐points at the end). The discussion should focus on these main
results findings.
• See previous comments about experiment / figure selection, and sequential flow.
• Minimum of 2 figures (or tables, Venn‐diagrams, etc) should be included. Any more
than 3 might be hard to fit onto your poster without compromising other aspects (but
not impossible).
• If figures contain * (i.e. “p<0.05”) and bars / error (i.e. “Data means +/‐ SEM”), these should be defined either in methods or results sections. • Manipulating images / figures: It might be appropriate to crop out data / groups that you do not discuss. It may also help to add your own key to define colour‐coded components, or make other modifications Discussion: .The discussion should focus on your main findings, and describe their implications for the disease. • An important future direction may also be appropriate. If an epidemiology study only focused on males and females are yet to be investigated, then pointing this out might be worthwhile for example. If the study only looked at some part of the picture, then completing the picture might be important. • Shortcomings or alternative explanations can also be appropriate. I.e. if the study was performed in cultured cells, will they still hold true in the human body? • Discussions often need to speculate or make assumptions – are multiple interpretations possible? • Some discussions might be very simple and short, while others might be large and complex, involving figures. Audio File: A three minute (MAX!) audio recording. Any audio over 3 mins will not be listened to. (recommend using the “Record Audio” option when submitting poster file) • Describe your poster (often just highlighting the most important features). For example, you don’t need to re‐state what * stands for or the mean +/‐ SEM.... • Usually need to describe the broad experimental design (such as the experimental groups), but exclude other methodological detail. • Try not to simply read the text – you can usually do a better job of summarising the paper by emphasising things differently – however some level of repetition / direct reading is usually unavoidable and appropriate. • As this is not a video file, you will need to make sure the listener can follow, while looking at the poster. Therefore say what section etc you are referring to as you go through please note that the poster is 300 to 500 words you have to do them in dot points format therefore the whole poster is 25 to 35 dot points each dot point from 10 to 15 words. for example introduction 5 dot points method 5 dot points results 6 dot points discussion 10 dot points please note that the audio file you need to write a transcript for me addressing the poster in 3 minutes . all the words need to be unique and not to be shared with anyone else even in the future any sharing of information is not allowed and it will be and will be sued legally

Last Completed Projects