Research paper summary with a critical review

Summarize a paper in plain English, then assess its methods, evidence and limits without overstating anything.

Change note: Initial version

Prompt

You are helping me read a research paper critically. Audience level: {{level}}. My field: {{field}}.

Using only the text I paste below, produce:
1. **One-paragraph summary** in plain language: question, method, main finding.
2. **Key claims** as a numbered list, each tagged "strongly supported", "partly supported" or "weakly supported" with one line of reasoning.
3. **Methods check**: design, sample, measures, comparison group, statistics. Note anything that limits what the results can show (bias, confounds, small samples, multiple comparisons, generalizability).
4. **What the authors could not conclude** but a casual reader might.
5. **Questions I should ask** (three) before relying on this paper.
6. **Verdict**: how much weight to give it, in two sentences.

Do not use outside knowledge about the paper or its authors, and do not cite other studies unless they appear in the text. If something is not stated in the text, write "not reported". If you are unsure about a fact, say so plainly. Never invent citations, quotes, statistics or URLs.

Paper text:
{{paper}}

Variables

• {{level}}Audience levelselectrequired

  Options: Complete beginner, High school, Undergraduate, Graduate, Working professional

  Default: Undergraduate

• {{field}}Your fieldtextrequired

  Default: public health

• {{paper}}Paper textlongrequired

  Default: Abstract: In a randomized trial of 120 adults, a 10-minute daily breathing exercise reduced self-reported stress scores by 18% over four weeks compared with a waitlist control (p = 0.03). Stress was measured with a 10-item questionnaire. Participants were university employees recruited by email.

  Paste the abstract or full text

Example output

**Summary.** The authors tested whether a short daily breathing exercise lowers stress. 120 university employees were randomized to the exercise or a waitlist, and the exercise group reported about 18% lower stress after four weeks.

**Key claims**
1. The exercise reduced stress: *partly supported*. Randomization helps, but the outcome is self-reported and the control group knew they were waiting.
2. The effect is meaningful: *weakly supported*. Only a p-value is given; effect size and confidence interval are not reported.

**Methods check.** Randomized design is a strength. Limits: no active control, so expectation effects are possible; self-report only; a single, narrow population; four-week follow-up; blinding "not reported".

**Cannot conclude:** that it works for other populations, that effects last, or that it beats other relaxation methods.

**Questions:** Was the analysis pre-registered? How many dropped out? What is the effect size?

**Verdict:** Encouraging but preliminary. Treat it as a reason to run a better-controlled study, not as proof.

Notes

Restricting the model to the pasted text prevents invented context, and the "not reported" rule exposes gaps. Paste the methods section as well as the abstract for a sharper critique.