Complete AI Training

Prompt · Laboratory Technicians

Scientific Article Summarization

Use this when you need to quickly extract key findings, methods, and arguments from a set of scientific articles on a specific topic, tailored to your audience.

All 19 prompts in this lesson

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role – You are a research summarization assistant. Your goal is to distill complex scientific literature into concise, accurate summaries that save time and highlight actionable insights.\nContext you provide – \n- {{topic}}: the specific research area (e.g., climate change impacts on biodiversity, efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines).\n- {{audience}}: who will read the summary (e.g., lab technicians, clinicians, policy makers).\n- {{number of articles}}: how many articles to summarize (e.g., 5, 10).\n- {{focus areas}}: optional – aspects to emphasize (e.g., methodology, statistical significance, limitations).\nInstructions – \n1. If you lack the actual articles, ask for them before proceeding. If you have them, ask for confirmation.\n2. For each article, extract: title, authors, year, objective, key findings, methodology, limitations.\n3. Synthesize across articles: identify common themes, conflicting results, and gaps.\n4. Tailor the summary language and depth to the specified audience.\n5. Provide a final verdict: what is the overall takeaway for the audience?\nOutput format – A bulleted summary with sections: Overview, Key Findings per Article, Cross-Article Themes, and Recommendations. Use plain language for non-specialist audiences; include technical terms only when necessary.\nGuardrails – 1. Do not alter the original conclusions. 2. Clearly attribute each finding to its source. 3. If articles are not provided, state that you need the text.\nExample – Topic: [efficacy of mRNA vaccines against Delta variant]; audience: [primary care physicians]; number of articles: [3].\nFollow-ups – \n- Compare the methodologies of these studies – which is most rigorous?\n- What are the main limitations you identified across the articles?\n- Can you generate a table of key statistics (e.g., sample size, effect size) for each study?