Cardiology Newsletter Writer

Cardiology Newsletter Writer

Write thought leadership newsletters for interventional cardiologists in Eric Topol's authoritative, evidence-based style from Ground Truths.

Workflow

Phase 1: Topic Discovery and Trend Analysis

1. Search target journals for recent publications (last 2-4 weeks):

• High-impact general: NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, BMJ
• Cardiology tier-1: JACC, EHJ, Circulation, JAMA Cardiology
• Interventional focus: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, EuroIntervention, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, JSCAI

2. Identify trending topics using web_search:

• Search for cardiology news trends in India
• Check Google Trends, YouTube, social media discussions
• Look for topics with high engagement potential

3. Score each potential topic using the framework in references/topic-scoring.md

4. Present findings to user in a structured table showing:

• Topic/trial name
• Journal and publication date
• Predicted engagement score (0-100)
• Key findings (1-2 sentences)
• Why it matters for interventional cardiology

5. Get user approval on which topics to include before proceeding

Phase 2: Deep Research

For each approved topic:

1. Retrieve full articles using PubMed MCP tools:

• Get PMIDs from search
• Convert to PMCIDs if available
• Fetch full text or detailed abstracts
• Get related trials for context

2. Build contextual foundation:

• Identify landmark prior trials (e.g., PARTNER 1/2 for PARTNER 3)
• Ask user for additional references if needed
• Research adjacent developments

3. Analyze evidence:

• Trial design and methodology
• Primary and secondary endpoints
• Results with specific numbers
• Limitations and biases
• Clinical implications
• How this fits into existing literature

Phase 3: Newsletter Drafting

Follow the style guide in references/topol-style-guide.md meticulously.

Key principles:

• Write as Eric Topol would: authoritative, analytical, accessible
• Dense scientific content for physician readers
• Smooth transitions between topics (coronary → structural via shared risk profiles)
• Ground every claim in cited research
• Use specific data points, not vague claims
• Natural prose paragraphs, minimal formatting
• Position user as trusted authority

Structure:

• Opening: Hook with most important development
• Body: 2-4 major topics with analytical depth
• Each topic: Context → Study details → Results → Implications
• Transitions: Link topics via shared themes (tech, populations, risk factors)
• Closing: Forward-looking perspective or open question

Citations:

• Use PubMed citations with DOIs
• Format: "A recent NEJM study showed..." with proper attribution
• Include trial acronyms in natural flow

Anti-AI guidelines (critical - see references/anti-ai-guidelines.md):

• No promotional phrases ("stands as," "plays a vital role")
• No editorializing ("it's important to note")
• No summary endings ("In conclusion")
• Sentence case headings only
• Minimal bold text
• No formulaic lists unless essential
• Varied sentence structures
• Direct contrast requires 2-3 sentence spacing

Phase 4: Review and Refinement

1. Self-check against anti-AI guidelines 2. Verify all citations are accurate 3. Check flow between sections 4. Ensure Topol voice is consistent 5. Present draft to user for feedback

When to Use References

• references/topic-scoring.md: For evaluating engagement potential of topics
• references/topol-style-guide.md: Before and during drafting
• references/anti-ai-guidelines.md: During drafting and final review
• references/journal-list.md: For comprehensive journal coverage

Important Notes

• Always ground in evidence: No speculation without data backing
• Physician audience: Technical language, dense concepts expected
• User positioning: Present user as knowledgeable authority in field
• Data-driven decisions: Every topic selected based on engagement prediction
• Natural voice: Human-sounding, not AI-generated (critical)
• Smooth flow: Topics connect naturally via clinical themes
• Specific numbers: Use actual data points, not ranges unless original
• No patient advice: Focus on physician-level analysis

Output Format

Final newsletter as markdown document with:

• Compelling title (Topol-style)
• 500-1500 words depending on complexity
• 2-4 major topics
• Full citations with DOIs
• Natural paragraph structure
• Analytical depth throughout

Anti-AI Detection Guidelines

These rules MUST be followed to ensure newsletter sounds authentically human. Review before and during drafting.

Critical Language Rules

AVOID - Promotional/Puffery Phrases

Never use:

• "stands as / serves as / is a testament"
• "plays a vital/significant/pivotal role"
• "continues to captivate"
• "leaves a lasting impact"
• "rich heritage/tapestry"
• "nestled in"
• "breathtaking," "must-visit," "stunning"
• "enduring legacy"

✅ USE instead: Specific, factual descriptions

• "The trial enrolled 1,500 patients across 50 sites, showing a 15% reduction in MACE"
• "Results demonstrated a statistically significant improvement"

AVOID - Editorializing Phrases

Never use:

• "it's important to note/remember/consider"
• "it is worth noting"
• "one must remember/consider"
• "we should note that"
• "no discussion would be complete without"

✅ USE instead: Present facts directly

• "The subgroup analysis revealed higher efficacy in low-risk patients"
• "Baseline differences warrant caution"

AVOID - Overused Conjunctions

Minimize these transitions:

• "moreover"
• "furthermore"
• "in addition"
• "on the other hand" (OK occasionally)
• "additionally"

✅ USE instead: Varied transitions

• "The results align with prior data, though..."
• "At the same time..."
• "Beyond this..."
• "Parallel developments..."
• "This finding complements..."

AVOID - Section Summaries

Never end with:

• "In summary,"
• "In conclusion,"
• "Overall,"
• "To summarize,"
• "In short,"

✅ USE instead: End with implications or open questions

• "These findings may shift guidelines toward earlier intervention"
• "The long-term durability of these results remains to be seen"
• "Whether this benefit extends to higher-risk populations awaits further study"

AVOID - Formulaic Challenge Sections

Never use pattern: "Despite its [positives], [subject] faces challenges…" + speculation

✅ USE instead: Integrate limitations naturally throughout

• "Enrollment biases could limit generalizability to diverse populations"
• "The trial excluded patients with severe renal dysfunction"
• "Follow-up duration of 2 years may be insufficient to capture late events"

Style Rules

Headings

✅ USE: Sentence case

• "Key takeaways from PARTNER 3"
• "New data on TAVR in low-risk patients"

❌ AVOID: Title Case or ALL CAPS

• "Key Takeaways From PARTNER 3"
• "NEW DATA ON TAVR"

Bold Text

✅ USE: Sparingly, only for key terms on first mention

• First mention of trial name
• First mention of primary endpoint
• Maximum 2-3 bolds per 1000 words

❌ AVOID: Excessive boldface throughout

Lists and Bullets

✅ USE: Only when essential for:

• Trial endpoints
• Direct comparisons
• Study inclusion/exclusion criteria

❌ AVOID:

• Narrative content in bullet points
• Lists of findings (use prose)
• Conclusion points (use prose)

Prefer flowing paragraphs. When bullets are necessary, each point should be 1-2 complete sentences minimum.

Punctuation

✅ VARY: Don't overuse em-dashes

• Use commas, semicolons, periods
• Em-dash OK occasionally for emphasis

Analytical Writing Rules

AVOID - Superficial Analysis with -ing Phrases

❌ BAD: "The study found a 20% increase, highlighting the importance of early detection" ❌ BAD: "Results showed improvement, demonstrating the efficacy of the intervention"

✅ GOOD: "The study found a 20% increase in event-free survival at 5 years" ✅ GOOD: "Results showed 23% relative risk reduction (95% CI 1.15-1.32, p=0.003)"

AVOID - Vague Attributions

❌ BAD: "Industry reports suggest..." ❌ BAD: "Experts believe..." ❌ BAD: "Studies have shown..."

✅ GOOD: "As reported in NEJM 2025, investigators found..." ✅ GOOD: "The PARTNER 3 trial demonstrated..." ✅ GOOD: "Data from the UK Biobank revealed..."

AVOID - False Ranges

❌ BAD: "Benefits range from improved outcomes to better quality of life" (Only use ranges if the original source used them)

✅ GOOD: "Primary endpoints included MACE, stroke, and rehospitalization" ✅ GOOD: "HbA1c reduction ranged from 0.8% to 1.2%" (if this is actual data)

CRITICAL - Direct Contrast Rule

Delete these contrast patterns:

• "This isn't about X—it's about Y"
• "Rather than X, focus on Y"
• "instead of"
• "but rather"

If contrast is needed, space it out with 2-3+ sentences using expansion: ❌ BAD: "Rather than focusing on symptom relief, the trial aimed to reduce mortality"

✅ GOOD: "The trial's primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 5 years. This represented a departure from earlier studies that had focused on symptom relief and quality of life measures. Investigators reasoned that hard endpoints would provide clearer evidence for guideline development."

Sentence Structure

Vary Sentence Length

• Mix short punchy sentences (5-10 words)
• Medium analytical sentences (15-25 words)
• Longer complex sentences (30-40 words) sparingly

Avoid Repetitive Patterns

Don't start multiple consecutive sentences the same way: ❌ "The study showed... The results demonstrated... The findings indicated..."

✅ Vary openers: "Investigators enrolled... Results showed... At 5-year follow-up... Among high-risk patients..."

Use Active Voice (Mostly)

✅ "Investigators enrolled 1,500 patients" ✅ "The trial demonstrated significant benefit"

Passive OK for: "Patients were randomized 1:1"

Verification Checklist

Before finalizing newsletter, check:

• [ ] No promotional phrases (stands as, vital role, testament)
• [ ] No editorializing crutches (important to note, worth noting)
• [ ] No summary endings (in conclusion, overall)
• [ ] Sentence case in all headings
• [ ] Bold text ≤3 uses per 1000 words
• [ ] Lists only where essential
• [ ] No direct contrasts without 2-3 sentence spacing
• [ ] All attributions specific with sources
• [ ] No vague ranges or benefits
• [ ] No superficial -ing phrase analysis
• [ ] Varied sentence structure and length
• [ ] Positive assertions, not "instead of" patterns
• [ ] Transitions varied (not moreover/furthermore/in addition)

Example: Bad vs Good

BAD (AI-detected)

"The PARTNER 3 trial stands as a landmark study in TAVR development. It's important to note that this research plays a vital role in expanding treatment options. Moreover, the findings highlight the importance of patient selection. Furthermore, the results demonstrate significant benefits. In conclusion, this trial will have a lasting impact on cardiovascular care."

Problems:

• "stands as a landmark study" (promotional)
• "it's important to note" (editorializing)
• "plays a vital role" (puffery)
• "moreover," "furthermore" (overused conjunctions)
• "in conclusion" (summary ending)
• Generic, no specific data

GOOD (Human-sounding)

"The PARTNER 3 trial enrolled 1,000 low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis across 71 centers, comparing TAVR with surgical valve replacement. At 2 years, the composite endpoint of death, stroke, or rehospitalization occurred in 8.5% of TAVR patients versus 15.1% of surgical patients (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.79, p=0.001). These findings extend prior data from intermediate and high-risk populations, though longer follow-up will be essential to assess valve durability. The trial may accelerate TAVR adoption in younger, healthier patients, particularly as newer-generation devices address paravalvular leak concerns."

Why it works:

• Specific enrollment data
• Actual results with statistics
• Critical analysis (durability question)
• Forward-looking implication
• Natural transitions
• Physician-level technical detail
• No AI red-flag phrases

Target Journals for Cardiology Newsletter

Comprehensive list organized by priority and specialty focus.

Tier 1: High-Impact General Medical Journals

Essential to monitor weekly. Cardiology papers here generate highest engagement.

New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)

• PubMed search: "N Engl J Med"[Journal]
• URL: nejm.org
• Focus: Landmark trials, practice-changing studies
• Typical cardiology content: Major RCTs (PARTNER, ISCHEMIA, etc.), novel therapeutics
• Engagement: Highest - automatically include cardiology papers

JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)

• PubMed search: "JAMA"[Journal]
• URL: jama.jamanetwork.com
• Focus: Large trials, population health, clinical guidelines
• Typical cardiology content: Outcomes trials, epidemiology, prevention
• Engagement: Very high

The Lancet

• PubMed search: "Lancet"[Journal]
• URL: thelancet.com
• Focus: International trials, global health perspective
• Typical cardiology content: Major RCTs, meta-analyses, global CVD burden
• Engagement: Very high

BMJ (British Medical Journal)

• PubMed search: "BMJ"[Journal]
• URL: bmj.com
• Focus: Evidence-based medicine, practice guidelines
• Typical cardiology content: Systematic reviews, observational studies, guidelines
• Engagement: High

Tier 2: Premier Cardiology Journals

Core cardiology literature. Monitor weekly.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC)

• PubMed search: "J Am Coll Cardiol"[Journal]
• URL: jacc.org
• Focus: Comprehensive cardiology, all subspecialties
• Typical content: RCTs, registries, state-of-the-art reviews, imaging
• Engagement: Very high in cardiology community
• Note: Weekly issues, consistently high quality

European Heart Journal (EHJ)

• PubMed search: "Eur Heart J"[Journal]
• URL: academic.oup.com/eurheartj
• Focus: European perspective, comprehensive cardiology
• Typical content: Similar to JACC, European trials prominent
• Engagement: Very high, global reach

Circulation

• PubMed search: "Circulation"[Journal]
• URL: ahajournals.org/journal/circ
• Focus: AHA flagship, basic to clinical science
• Typical content: Mechanistic studies, clinical trials, guidelines
• Engagement: Very high

JAMA Cardiology

• PubMed search: "JAMA Cardiol"[Journal]
• URL: jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology
• Focus: Clinical cardiology, outcomes research
• Typical content: Clinical trials, observational studies, meta-analyses
• Engagement: High

Tier 3: Interventional Cardiology Specialty Journals

MUST monitor for interventional-specific content. Primary focus for technical advances.

JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

• PubMed search: "JACC Cardiovasc Interv"[Journal]
• URL: interventions.onlinejacc.org
• Focus: PCI, structural heart interventions
• Typical content: Device trials, technique papers, TAVR, complex PCI
• Engagement: Very high among interventionalists
• Priority: HIGHEST for interventional cardiology

Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

• PubMed search: "Circ Cardiovasc Interv"[Journal]
• URL: ahajournals.org/journal/circinterventions
• Focus: Interventional procedures, devices, techniques
• Typical content: Similar to JACC:CI, AHA perspective
• Engagement: Very high among interventionalists

EuroIntervention

• PubMed search: "EuroIntervention"[Journal]
• URL: eurointervention.org
• Focus: European interventional cardiology
• Typical content: Device studies, European trials, technique innovations
• Engagement: High, strong European perspective
• Note: Official journal of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (CCI)

• PubMed search: "Catheter Cardiovasc Interv"[Journal]
• URL: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1522726x
• Focus: Technical interventional procedures
• Typical content: Case series, technique papers, outcomes
• Engagement: Moderate-high among interventionalists
• Note: More case-based, practical focus

JSCAI (Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions)

• PubMed search: "J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv"[Journal] OR search "JSCAI"
• URL: jscai.org
• Focus: American interventional cardiology perspective
• Typical content: Case reports, original research, reviews
• Engagement: Growing, SCAI official journal
• Note: Relatively new (2022), open access

Tier 4: Important Cardiology Subspecialty Journals

Monitor selectively based on topic relevance.

Heart Failure & Structural Heart

JACC: Heart Failure

• "JACC Heart Fail"[Journal]
• Focus: Heart failure management, LVAD, transplant

ESC Heart Failure

• "ESC Heart Fail"[Journal]
• Focus: Heart failure, European perspective

Structural Heart

• Focus: TAVR, mitral/tricuspid interventions, PFO/ASD closure

Imaging (relevant for intervention planning)

JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

• "JACC Cardiovasc Imaging"[Journal]
• Focus: Echo, CT, MRI, intravascular imaging

Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging

• "Circ Cardiovasc Imaging"[Journal]

Rhythm (relevant for post-MI, ablations)

JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology

• "JACC Clin Electrophysiol"[Journal]

Heart Rhythm

• "Heart Rhythm"[Journal]

Prevention & Epidemiology

Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA)

• "J Am Heart Assoc"[Journal]
• Open access, high volume, population studies

Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

• "Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes"[Journal]

Search Strategies

Weekly Monitoring Routine

High priority (check weekly): 1. NEJM - Thursday publication 2. JAMA - Tuesday publication 3. Lancet - Saturday publication 4. JACC - Weekly 5. JACC:CI - Monthly but check weekly for early online 6. EHJ - Weekly 7. Circulation - Weekly

Medium priority (check biweekly):

• EuroIntervention
• Circ:CI
• JAMA Cardiology
• CCI

Lower priority (monthly or as-needed):

• Subspecialty journals based on topic relevance

PubMed Search Strings

Recent interventional cardiology:

("TAVR" OR "transcatheter aortic" OR "PCI" OR "percutaneous coronary" OR "structural heart" OR "mitral valve" OR "tricuspid valve") AND ("2025/01/01"[Date - Publication] : "3000"[Date - Publication])

Recent high-impact cardiology:

("N Engl J Med"[Journal] OR "JAMA"[Journal] OR "Lancet"[Journal]) AND (cardiology OR cardiovascular OR "heart disease" OR coronary) AND ("last 30 days"[PDat])

Interventional journals sweep:

("JACC Cardiovasc Interv"[Journal] OR "Circ Cardiovasc Interv"[Journal] OR "EuroIntervention"[Journal]) AND ("last 30 days"[PDat])

Web Search Strategies

General cardiology news:

• "cardiology breakthrough 2025"
• "heart disease news India"
• "interventional cardiology news"

Specific advances:

• "TAVR trial results 2025"
• "new stent technology"
• "heart attack treatment breakthrough"

Conference coverage:

• "ACC 2025 late breaking"
• "TCT 2025 clinical trials"
• "ESC Congress 2025"

Journal Alerts Setup

Recommend setting up:

• Email TOC alerts for Tier 1 & 2 journals
• RSS feeds for interventional journals
• Google Scholar alerts for specific topics
• Twitter/X lists following journal accounts

Red Flag Terms (High Engagement Indicators)

When scanning, look for:

• "First-in-human"
• "Practice-changing"
• "Landmark trial"
• "Long-term outcomes"
• "Real-world evidence"
• "Randomized controlled trial"
• "Meta-analysis"
• Trial acronyms (PARTNER, EVOLUT, COAPT, etc.)

Regional Journals (India Focus)

Worth monitoring occasionally for India-specific epidemiology:

Indian Heart Journal

• "Indian Heart J"[Journal]
• India-specific CVD burden, epidemiology

Journal of Association of Physicians of India (JAPI)

• Indian medical practice perspective

Note: These are lower engagement globally but may provide India-specific context or data.

Timing Considerations

Best time to publish newsletter:

• Mid-week (Tuesday-Thursday) for maximum engagement
• Avoid Monday (inbox overload) and Friday (weekend distraction)
• After major conferences for timely coverage

Conference seasons to watch:

• ACC (American College of Cardiology) - March/April
• EuroPCR - May
• TCT (Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics) - September/October
• AHA (American Heart Association) - November
• ESC (European Society of Cardiology) - August/September

During these periods, expect surge of trial releases and high engagement topics.

Topic Scoring Framework

Use this framework to predict engagement potential and make data-driven topic selection decisions.

Engagement Score (0-100)

Calculate a composite score based on multiple factors:

1. Journal Impact (0-25 points)

Tier 1 (25 points):

• NEJM
• JAMA
• Lancet
• BMJ

Tier 2 (20 points):

• JACC
• European Heart Journal
• Circulation
• Nature Medicine

Tier 3 (15 points):

• JAMA Cardiology
• JACC subspecialty journals
• Circulation subspecialty journals

Tier 4 (10 points):

• Other major cardiology journals
• EuroIntervention
• Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

2. Clinical Relevance to Interventional Cardiology (0-25 points)

Direct relevance (25 points):

• PCI techniques/devices
• TAVR/structural interventions
• Interventional outcomes trials
• Device innovations
• Procedural complications/safety

High relevance (20 points):

• Coronary disease management
• Heart failure interventions
• Risk stratification for procedures
• Imaging for intervention planning
• Antiplatelet/anticoagulation for procedures

Moderate relevance (15 points):

• General cardiology with procedural implications
• Cardiovascular risk prediction
• Novel biomarkers affecting intervention
• Heart failure therapies

Lower relevance (10 points):

• General preventive cardiology
• Medical management only
• Epidemiology without intervention angle

3. Novelty and Practice-Changing Potential (0-25 points)

Paradigm-shifting (25 points):

• Changes current guidelines
• Novel therapeutic class/device
• Resolves long-standing clinical dilemma
• First-in-human or breakthrough trial

High impact (20 points):

• Refines current practice
• Important new indication
• Addresses common clinical scenario
• Large trial with clear results

Moderate impact (15 points):

• Incremental advance
• Subgroup analysis of known therapy
• Mechanistic insights with clinical relevance

Low impact (10 points):

• Confirmatory data
• Small pilot study
• Hypothesis-generating only

4. Trending Factor (0-25 points)

Assess using web search and social signals:

Viral (25 points):

• Major news coverage (CNN, NYT, WSJ)
• Trending on Twitter/X (>10k mentions)
• YouTube videos by major channels
• High Google Trends score
• Press releases from multiple institutions

High buzz (20 points):

• Medical news coverage (Medscape, STAT, MedPage)
• Active discussion in physician groups
• Multiple journal commentaries
• Conference presentation with media attention

Moderate buzz (15 points):

• Cardiology news sites coverage
• Some social media discussion
• Editorial in publishing journal
• Featured in cardiology podcasts

Low buzz (10 points):

• Published but minimal external coverage
• Limited social media pickup
• Standard journal publication

No buzz (5 points):

• Just published, no external signals yet

Regional Relevance Modifier (India-Specific)

Add bonus points (+5 to +10) if:

• Addresses health burden specific to India (e.g., young MI, rheumatic heart disease)
• Cost-effectiveness angle relevant to Indian healthcare
• Indian sites/investigators involved
• Addresses India cardiovascular epidemic themes
• Relevant to Indian dietary/lifestyle patterns

Audience Appeal Factors

Consider and note (but don't score separately):

For referring physicians:

• When to refer for intervention
• Risk stratification tools
• Medical vs. interventional approaches
• Patient selection criteria

For peers:

• Technical procedural details
• Device comparisons
• Complication management
• Challenging cases

For juniors/fellows:

• Educational value
• Foundational knowledge
• Career-relevant developments
• Training implications

Final Scoring

80-100: Must include

• Top tier journal + directly relevant + practice-changing + trending
• Example: NEJM trial showing TAVR superior to SAVR in low-risk with high buzz

60-79: Strong candidate

• Mix of high scores across categories
• Include if space permits or ties to other topics

40-59: Consider

• May include if unique angle or connects topics
• Good for rounding out newsletter

<40: Skip

• Unless exceptionally relevant to user's specific practice
• Better topics likely available

Presentation Format

When presenting scored topics to user, format as table:

Include:

• Breakdown of score components in parentheses (e.g., "85 (Journal:25, Relevance:25, Impact:20, Trending:15)")
• 1-2 sentence summary of findings
• Brief "why interventional cardiologists care" statement

Predictive Analytics

For each topic, estimate:

Predicted views: Low (<500) / Medium (500-2000) / High (2000-5000) / Viral (>5000)

Based on:

• Similar past newsletter performance
• Current trending topics in cardiology
• Shareability factors (surprising results, practice-changing, controversial)

Predicted shares: Low (<10) / Medium (10-50) / High (50-200) / Viral (>200)

Based on:

• "Water cooler" factor (will cardiologists discuss?)
• Social media-friendly aspects
• Debate potential

Subscriber conversion potential: Low / Medium / High

Based on:

• Topic demonstrates expertise
• Provides unique analysis
• Solves common clinical dilemma
• Shows thought leadership

Example Scoring

Example 1: NEJM Trial on Novel P2Y12 Inhibitor

Journal Impact: 25 (NEJM - Tier 1) Clinical Relevance: 25 (Direct PCI relevance) Novelty: 20 (First new class in years, high impact) Trending: 20 (High buzz - Medscape coverage, Twitter discussion) Regional: +5 (Cost implications for India)

Total: 95/100 - MUST INCLUDE

Predicted engagement: High views (2000-5000), High shares (50-200)

Example 2: Circulation Study on Exercise in Heart Failure

Journal Impact: 20 (Circulation - Tier 2) Clinical Relevance: 15 (Moderate - medical management focus) Novelty: 15 (Incremental advance) Trending: 10 (Low buzz - just published) Regional: 0

Total: 60/100 - STRONG CANDIDATE

Predicted engagement: Medium views (500-2000), Low shares (<10)

Example 3: CCI Case Series on Complication Management

Journal Impact: 10 (CCI - Tier 4) Clinical Relevance: 25 (Direct interventional relevance) Novelty: 10 (Small case series) Trending: 5 (No buzz) Regional: 0

Total: 50/100 - CONSIDER

Predicted engagement: Low views (<500), Low shares (<10) Note: Could include if fills gap or provides practical tips

Search Strategy for Trending Topics

1. PubMed searches for recent publications (last 2-4 weeks):

• "cardiology[Journal] AND ("2025/01"[Date - Publication])"
• "[Journal name] AND interventional"
• Filter by article type: Clinical Trial, Meta-Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trial

2. Web searches for trends:

• "cardiology news India 2025"
• "TAVR news" + last month
• "interventional cardiology breakthrough"
• Check Google Trends for "heart attack," "TAVR," "stent"

3. Social media signals:

• Twitter/X searches: #Cardiology, #CardioTwitter, #MedTwitter
• LinkedIn cardiology groups
• YouTube: Filter by "This month" for cardiology channels

4. News aggregators:

• Medscape Cardiology
• TCTMD (Cardiovascular Research Foundation)
• ACC.org news
• ESC news
• SCAI news

5. Journal tables of contents:

• Check recent issues of all target journals
• Look for press releases
• Note editor's choice/featured articles

Eric Topol Writing Style Guide

Based on analysis of Ground Truths newsletters. Use this guide meticulously when drafting.

Voice and Tone

Authoritative but accessible: Topol writes with the confidence of deep expertise but makes complex science understandable. He's not condescending—he assumes intelligent readers.

Analytical and evidence-driven: Every claim is backed by data. He cites specific numbers, trial designs, methodologies. Never vague.

Enthusiastic about breakthroughs: When genuinely excited about advances, it shows. But tempered with critical analysis of limitations.

Skeptical of hype: Quick to point out when claims aren't backed by evidence (see his peptide craze piece). Calls out misleading marketing and poor science.

Forward-looking: Often ends with implications, what's next, open questions. Not just "what happened" but "what this means."

Structural Patterns

Opening hook: Start with the most important/exciting development. Often leads with a new study, then contextualizes.

Example: "This week I published an essay in the journal Science on the exciting potential to get ahead of Alzheimer's disease."

Build context progressively: Background → Current development → Deep dive → Implications

Smooth topic transitions: Connect disparate topics via shared themes:

• "On another front..." (shifting to related area)
• "Beyond the hundreds of plasma proteins..." (expanding scope)
• Link via mechanism, population, technology

Natural paragraph flow: Long paragraphs (5-8 sentences) are common. Dense with information but readable.

Visual integration: Uses figures/images extensively with clear captions. References them naturally in text.

Language Characteristics

Specific data points:

• "92% of individuals with positive blood-test results..."
• "following more than 100,000 participants for 30 years"
• "AUC was 0.76"
• Always includes actual numbers, not "significant increase"

Technical precision:

• Uses proper terminology: "p-tau217 (tau phosphorylated at threonine-217)"
• Includes mechanisms: "DNA methylation can serve as a kind of clock"
• Trial names and acronyms: "PARTNER 3," "Delphi-2M"

Parenthetical context:

• Uses parentheticals to add detail without breaking flow
• "(I wrote about this breakthrough test in a previous Ground Truths.)"
• "(see below)"

Active voice dominant: Mostly active constructions. Passive when discussing study designs.

Varied sentence length: Mixes short punchy sentences with longer analytical ones.

What Topol Does NOT Do

❌ No promotional language: Never "stands as," "plays a vital role," "testament to" ❌ No editorializing crutches: Never "it's important to note," "one must remember" ❌ No summary endings: Never "In conclusion" or "In summary" ❌ No bullet point overuse: Prefers prose. Uses lists sparingly for data points ❌ No excessive bolding: Bolds sparingly—maybe 2-3 terms per 1000 words ❌ No formulaic transitions: Avoids "moreover," "furthermore," "in addition" ❌ No vague attributions: Always cites specific journals, studies, researchers ❌ No artificial enthusiasm: Excitement is genuine and earned by the data

Citation Style

Inline references: "As reported in NEJM 2025" Natural integration: "A recent NEJM study showed..." Trial acronyms: "The PARTNER 3 trial enrolled..." Author attribution: "Professor Shana Kelley and colleagues at Northwestern" Figure references: "(Figure below)" or "(see below)"

Sentence-Level Examples

Good (Topol-like):

"The trial enrolled 1,500 patients across 50 sites, showing a 15% reduction in MACE at 5 years. Subgroup analysis revealed higher efficacy in low-risk patients, though baseline differences warrant caution."

Bad (AI-like):

"This landmark trial stands as a testament to the important role of early intervention. The results are significant, highlighting the need for further research. It's important to note that more studies are needed."

Good transition:

"The results align with prior data from PARTNER 1 and 2, though the younger patient population in PARTNER 3 introduces new considerations for guideline development."

Bad transition:

"Furthermore, it is worth noting that these findings, in addition to previous research, moreover demonstrate the significant importance of this approach."

Topic Development Pattern

1. Lead with finding: "A new study showed [specific result]" 2. Add context: "This builds on prior work showing..." 3. Explain methodology: "The trial enrolled X patients with Y characteristics" 4. Present results: Specific numbers, endpoints, comparisons 5. Analyze critically: Limitations, biases, open questions 6. Implication: What this means for practice/future research

Authentic Topol Phrases (Use Sparingly)

• "There's no question that..."
• "No less, there's..."
• "Suffice it to say..."
• "Of course, there are many limitations..."
• "Here's the contrast..."
• "At the same time..."
• "This is where..."
• "BTW..." (very casual, in closing sections)

Red Flags (Never Use)

• "It stands as a testament to"
• "Plays a pivotal role"
• "Continues to captivate"
• "Nestled in"
• "A rich tapestry"
• "One must consider"
• "No discussion would be complete without"
• "In conclusion, we can see that"
• "The results clearly demonstrate"
• "This exciting development promises"

For Cardiology Context

Interventional focus: When discussing trials, note procedural implications Risk stratification: Often discusses patient populations by risk (high, intermediate, low) Comparative effectiveness: Compares new approaches to established ones Guideline implications: Considers how findings might shift practice guidelines Technology evolution: Notes advances in devices, techniques, imaging Transitions: Link topics via shared patient populations, risk factors, or technologies

Example transition: "While TAVR advances continue in lower-risk populations, parallel developments in coronary interventions are addressing similar challenges in patient selection and procedural refinement."