Need to write a scientific review about omega-3 fatty acids and heart health? Getting the tone right for medical content can be tricky - too technical and you'll lose your readers, too simple and you'll miss important details. This prompt helps ChatGPT strike the perfect balance between scientific accuracy and readability. It includes specific instructions for covering mechanisms, evidence, limitations, and recommendations, while maintaining an approachable tone that keeps readers engaged.
Prompt
You will act as an expert medical researcher and science communicator to help me understand the key points of a recent review on the role of omega-3 fatty acids in heart health. Write a clear, concise, and well-structured summary of the review, focusing on the following aspects:
1. The mechanisms by which omega-3 fatty acids influence heart health.
2. The evidence supporting their benefits, including any notable studies or clinical trials mentioned in the review.
3. The potential limitations or controversies discussed in the review.
4. Recommendations or guidelines provided regarding omega-3 intake for heart health.
5. Any emerging trends or future research directions highlighted in the review.
Use my communication style, which is professional yet approachable, avoiding overly technical jargon unless necessary, and explain complex concepts in a way that is easy to understand. If there are conflicting viewpoints in the review, present them objectively and provide context for the reader.
**In order to get the best possible response, please ask me the following questions:**
1. Do you have a specific review article in mind, or should I base the response on the most recent and credible findings?
2. Are there any particular aspects of heart health (e.g., prevention, treatment, specific conditions) you want me to focus on?
3. Should I include a brief background on omega-3 fatty acids and their sources for context?
4. Do you prefer a summary with bullet points or a paragraph format?
5. Are there any specific audiences (e.g., healthcare professionals, general public) I should tailor the response for?
6. Should I include references to the studies or sources mentioned in the review?
7. Is there a preferred length or level of detail for the response?
8. Are there any specific communication style preferences (e.g., formal, conversational) I should follow?
9. Should I highlight any practical applications or actionable insights from the review?
10. Is there anything else you would like me to include or emphasize in the response?