cc-structured-abstract

name	cc-structured-abstract
description	Use when writing the Cancer Cell (Cell Press) front matter — the Summary, eTOC blurb, Highlights, and graphical abstract. It crafts these short items for accuracy and impact; it does not write Results or calibrate statistics.

Summary, Highlights & Graphical Abstract (cc-structured-abstract)

When to trigger

• Need a Cancer Cell Summary (the abstract)
• Need Highlights (the short bullet list Cell Press requires)
• Need the eTOC blurb (one-paragraph teaser for the table of contents)
• Building or refining the graphical abstract

The Summary (abstract)

Cell Press uses a single-paragraph Summary (verify the current word limit on the author page). Structure it as a tight mechanistic arc:

1. Context / gap — the cancer problem and the unknown (1 sentence).
2. Approach — the systems used (cells / in vivo / human), at a high level.
3. Core finding — the mechanism: what regulates what, with direction.
4. Validation — that it holds in vivo and/or in patient data.
5. Significance — the translational implication (vulnerability / biomarker / therapy), calibrated to the evidence.

Lead with the discovery, not the background. Name the molecule/axis and the cancer context concretely. Avoid hype words ("novel," "unprecedented") and unsupported clinical promises.

Highlights

• Provide the required number of short bullets (commonly four; verify current count), each ~85 characters.
• Each highlight is a result, not a method or aim.
• Order them as a mini-story: key mechanism → validation → translational point.
• Make them specific and declarative ("X drives Y via Z in pancreatic tumors"), not vague ("X plays a role").

eTOC blurb

• One short paragraph (a few sentences) written for a broad cancer audience.
• Third person, present tense; names the authors' key finding and why it matters.
• Often written as "Author et al. show that ..." — confirm the current style.
• No abbreviations that a non-specialist would not know.

Graphical abstract

• One panel that conveys the mechanism and its consequence at a glance.
• Show the axis (input → node → output) and the tumor context; minimal text.
• Must match the paper's actual claims — no implied results beyond the data.
• Build in BioRender/Illustrator at required resolution; legible at thumbnail size.

Checklist

• Summary leads with the discovery and names the mechanism concretely
• Summary states orthogonal validation (in vivo / human) and a calibrated significance line
• Summary within the current word limit; no hype words
• Highlights are results, specific, ordered as a story, within length
• eTOC blurb is broad-audience, present tense, accurate
• Graphical abstract shows mechanism → consequence and matches the data
• Front matter is consistent with the paper's actual claims and n/evidence

Anti-patterns

• Background-heavy Summary that buries the finding
• Highlights that restate aims/methods or are vague
• Overclaiming therapeutic impact in the Summary or graphical abstract
• Graphical abstract implying results not shown in the paper
• eTOC blurb stuffed with jargon and abbreviations
• Inconsistent gene/protein nomenclature across front matter and text

Abstract pass for Cancer Cell

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the cancer context, mechanism, model system, validation chain, and translational boundary; then test whether the manuscript addresses cancer-biology reviewers who expect mechanistic oncology, translational relevance, and strong multi-modal validation.

• Primary move: Compress to question, design, population/object, result, limitation, and contribution; remove generic importance sentences.
• Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
• Neighbor test: compare against Cell for broader biology, Nature Cancer for oncology breadth, Clinical Cancer Research for clinical translation; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
• Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Summary】drafted; words = ...; leads with finding? Y/N
【Validation line】in vivo / human stated? Y/N
【Highlights】n bullets; all results? within length?
【eTOC blurb】broad-audience? accurate? Y/N
【Graphical abstract】mechanism→consequence? matches data? Y/N
【Overclaim check】hype/clinical promises removed? Y/N
【Next step】cc-ethics-registration or cc-writing-style