sample for article review pdf

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review

Last Updated: September 8, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 13 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,091,039 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Things You Should Know

• Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
• Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
• Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information. [1] X Research source

Preparing to Write Your Review

• Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
• An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
• An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

• Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
• Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
• Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

• Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
• Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

• Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

• With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
• After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
• Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

• What does the article set out to do?
• What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
• Are the central concepts clearly defined?
• How adequate is the evidence?
• How does the article fit into the literature and field?
• Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
• How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

Writing the Article Review

• For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [10] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

• For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

• Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
• End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

• Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
• Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

• Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
• The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
• Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
• Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

• This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
• For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

• Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

Sample Article Reviews

Expert Q&A

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/grammarpunct/proofreading/
• ↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
• ↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
• ↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
• ↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
• ↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
• ↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Oct 25, 2023

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

How to Write a Review Article

Cite this chapter.

3295 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Day RA. How to publish a scientific paper. 5th ed. Westport, CT: Oryx; 1998:163.

Google Scholar  

Siwek J, Gourlay ML, Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. How to write an evidence-based clinical review article. Am Fam Phys 2002;65:251–258.

Journal of the American Medical Association. Instructions for authors. JAMA 2004;291:125–131. Available at: http://jama. ama-assn.org/ifora_current/dtl.

Harris RP, Helfand M, Wolff SH, et al. Methods Work Group, Third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. A review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3 suppl):21–35.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Phys 2004;69:548–556.

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

(2005). How to Write a Review Article. In: The Clinician’s Guide to Medical Writing. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-27024-8_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-27024-8_6

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-22249-3

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-27024-1

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The Tech Edvocate

• Advertisement
• Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
• Home Page Four
• Home Page Three
• Home Page Two
• Icons [No Sidebar]
• Left Sidbear Page
• Lynch Educational Consulting
• My Speaking Page
• Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
• Newsletter Unsubscription
• Page Example
• Privacy Policy
• Protected Content
• Request a Product Review
• Shortcodes Examples
• Terms and Conditions
• The Edvocate
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• Write For Us
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Assistive Technology
• Child Development Tech
• Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
• EdTech Futures
• EdTech News
• EdTech Policy & Reform
• EdTech Startups & Businesses
• Higher Education EdTech
• Online Learning & eLearning
• Parent & Family Tech
• Personalized Learning
• Product Reviews
• Tech Edvocate Awards
• School Ratings

IEP Meetings And Parent-Teacher Conferences: Everything You Need to Know

College disability services and accommodations: everything you need to know, spam vs. phishing: how are these unwanted messages different, how to charge your iphone properly, encouraging your teenager to read: everything you need to know, 8 ways to service an air conditioner, 3 ways to stop a baby from vomiting, 3 ways to save instagram highlights, skills needed for reading comprehension: everything you need to know, how to change the language in android, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

How to Build a Capacitor: 5 Steps

3 Easy Ways to Shave Your Bikini Area with Coconut Oil

How to Put Out a Campfire: 10 Steps

3 Ways to Develop Relative Pitch

3 Ways to Make Pizza

4 Ways to Flex Your Back for Improved Mobility and Strength

Article Review

Article reviews are an essential part of academic article writing , providing an opportunity to evaluate and analyze published research. A well-written review can help readers understand the simple subject matter and determine the value of the article. In this article, we’ll cover what is an article review, provide step-by-step guidance on how to write one, and answer some common questions.

1. Journal Article Review Form

Size: 84 KB

2. Article Review & Critique

Size: 420 KB

3. Formal Article Review

Size: 188 KB

4. Article Review Guideline

Size: 157 KB

5. Book and Article Reviews

Size: 284 KB

6. Format for Review Article

Size: 71 KB

7. Scientific Article Review

Size: 258 KB

8. Critical Reviews of Journal Articles

Size: 50 KB

9. Research Experience Article Review

Size: 31 KB

10. Review for Article Psychological Bulletin

11. Article Format Guide Review

Size: 449 KB

12. Value Of Review Article

Size: 51 KB

13. Articles for Peer-Review Publications

Size: 181 KB

14. Law Review Article Selection Process

15. Creative Article Review

Size: 46 KB

16. Club Article Review

Size: 77 KB

17. Review of Research Articles

Size: 152 KB

What is an Article Review

An article review is a critical assessment of a scholarly article or research paper. It involves analyzing the content, methodology, and findings of the article and providing an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. The review typically includes a summary of the article’s main points, an evaluation of its contribution to the subject, and suggestions for improvement.

How to Write an Article Review

Writing an article review can be a challenging task, but it’s an essential skill for students and researchers alike. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you write an effective article review:

Choose the article to review

Select an article that is relevant to your subject and interests you. Make sure the article is recent, reputable, and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Read the article carefully

Read the article thoroughly and take notes as you go. Pay attention to the author’s thesis statement, research question, methodology, and findings.

Identify the main points and key arguments

Determine the main points and arguments of the article. Look for evidence that supports the author’s thesis statement.

Evaluate the article’s methodology and research design

Evaluate the methodology and research design used in the article. Determine if the research methods were appropriate and effective in answering the research question.

Assess the article’s strengths and weaknesses

Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Evaluate the quality of the evidence presented and the logic of the arguments made.

Write a summary of the article

Summarize the article in your own words. Include the main points, key arguments, and findings of the article.

Write the main body of the review

In the main body of the review, analyze and evaluate the article. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article and provide evidence to support your claims.

Conclude with a final evaluation and recommendations for improvement

Conclude your review with a final evaluation conclusion of the article. Highlight its strengths and weaknesses and provide recommendations for improvement.

Proofread and edit the review

After completing your review, proofread and edit it carefully. Check for spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Make sure your review is clear, concise, and well-organized.

What is the difference between an article review and a literature review?

A literature review is a comprehensive analysis of published research on a particular subject, while an article review focuses specifically on one article.

Can I use first-person sentences in an article review?

It depends on the guidelines given by your instructor or the publication you are submitting the review to. Generally, using the third person is more appropriate for academic writing sentences .

Should I include the abstract of the article in my review?

Yes, including a brief summary of the article’s abstract is usually a good idea.

How long should an article review be?

The length of an article review varies depending on the subject and the publication requirements. Generally, a review should be between 500 and 1000 words.

Writing an effective article review requires careful analysis, evaluation, and critique of the article. By following our step-by-step guide, you can develop the skills to write a comprehensive and insightful review that provides valuable information to readers. Whether you’re reviewing an academic article, book or manuscript , or any other subject, the tips and techniques outlined here will help you write an effective article review.

AI Generator

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Sample article review

While change of events is a fact of life on projects, project performance problems are fundamentally dynamic problems that result from attempts to manage in the face of change and uncertainty. With the growing complexity of projects, some weaknesses of traditional approaches in coping with the strategic issues are being highlighted. Many scholars have been studying this and suggest system design as a solution and gave their own assessments; this paper primarily discusses and reviews the works of 4 articles, Using systems dynamics to better understand change and rework in construction project management systems [1] by P.E.D. Lovea, G.D. Holta, L.Y. Shenb, H. Lib, Z. Iranic; System dynamics in project management, Assessing the impacts of client behavior on Project Performance [2] by Alexander G, Rodrigus and Terry M.Williams; A system dynamics approach to risks description in megaprojects development [3] by Prince Boateng, Zhen Chen, Stephen Ogunlana and Dubem Ikediashi; and The role of system dynamics in project management, A comparative Analysis with tradition methods [4] by Alexander G, Rodrigus

Related Papers

PRINCE BOATENG , Zhen Chen

Stephen O Ogunlana

Keywords the inherent risks and their interactive impacts in megaproject develop-ment have been found in numerous cases across the world. Although risk management standards have been recommended for the best practice, there is still a lack of systematic approaches to describing the interaction among social, technical, economic, environmental and political (STEEP) risks with regard to all complex and dynamic conditions of megaproject construction for better understanding and effective management of the management mechanism in terms of the nature risks, including their dynamic interactions and impacts in megaproject development. Purpose – Present a model to describe STEEP risks and their interactions in megaproject development. Design/methodology/approach – A case study methodology is adopted. Following comprehensive literature review, qualitative data were gath-ered from case studies through interview conducted on Tram Network Project in Edinburgh. Casual loops of typical evolution o...

Engineering, Construction and …

Stephen O Ogunlana , Long Nguyen

PRINCE BOATENG

IAEME Publication

A construction megaproject is defined in literature as a construction project, or aggregate of such projects, characterized by magnified cost, extreme complexity, increased risk, lofty ideals, and high visibility, in a combination that represents a significant challenge to the stakeholders, a significant impact to the community, and pushes the limits of construction experience. Risk assessment in megaproject is the most difficult component in the risk management process. Although it has high relevance to the success of megaprojects, risk management remains one of the least developed research issues. Megaprojects are executed in a dynamic environment and identified risks are to be prioritised based on their impact on project objectives of time cost and quality before they can be modelled .The present paper focuses on prioritising the technical risks associated with the construction of phase 1of Bangalore Metro Rail Project to assess its impact on the project objectives that helps in the decision support system of the project.

Stewart Clegg , Julien Pollack

Megaprojects are complex achievements of organization, sensemaking and management of power relations. Typically, engineering practice stresses rationality and linearity, exemplified in the nineteenth century roots of modern management in writers such as Taylor or Fayol. A concern with contingency theory and the emergence of project management standards hardly changed these auspices. The emergent focus on soft systems theory and a more recent interest in the practice turn did begin to change megaproject management representations somewhat. In practice, megaprojects are occasions for much complex sensemaking, as Weick defines the concept. In turn, where there are different interests in different sensemaking, then power practices and relations need to be brought into focus. The chapter does this through discussing a number of studies in which these issues have been the focus.

Joshua Banda

Evgeny Chavanin

The phenomenon known as the “megaproject paradox”, a situation in which the project fails to meet its cost, schedule and quality targets, has been given an unprecedented attention in the research literature and is currently on the rise, as the governments tighten budgets and cut public spending. The cost study by Flyvbjerg et al. (2002) analyzed 258 transport projects from 20 nations across 5 continents and discovered that 9 out of 10 projects had budget overrun, with an average budget escalation of 28%. Furthermore, the overrun appeared to be constant over a 70-year time span. This problem is not uncommon for other industries. Recent study of 5,400 large IT projects estimated an average budget overrun at 45%, with 7% overtime and 56% drop in deliverable value (M. Bloch, Sven Blumberg, Jurgen Laartz, 2012). The authors also found out that the longer the project is scheduled to last, the more likely it is to run over time and budget. Thus, every additional year spent on the project increases cost overruns by 15% (M. Bloch, Sven Blumberg, Jurgen Laartz, 2012). Another study of IT projects by US Army found that 47% were delivered to the customer but not used; 29% were paid for but not delivered; 19% were abandoned or reworked; 3% were used with minor changes; and only 2% were used as delivered (Williams & Samset, 2010). The cited study of PricewaterhouseCoopers finds out that only 2.5% of large capital projects in the world’s mining industry had been successful (Motta et al. 2014). In oil and gas industry 30-40% of the projects overrun their costs by at least 10% (Mckenna, Vanderschee & Wilczynski, 2011).

Oluwole (Alfred) Olatunji , Olugbenga Olaniran

Cost overruns are a persistent problem in oil and gas megaprojects. Whilst the extant literature is filled with studies on incidents and causes of cost overruns, underlying theories to explain their emergence in oil and gas megaprojects are few. Yet, a way to contain the syndrome of cost overruns is to understand the bases of ‘how and why’ they occur. Such knowledge will also help to develop pragmatic techniques for better overall management of oil and gas megaprojects. The aim of this paper is to explain the development of cost overruns in hydrocarbon megaprojects through the perspective of chaos theory. The underlying principles of chaos theory and its implications for cost overruns are examined and practical is proposed. In addition, directions for future research in this fertile area provided.

RELATED PAPERS

Wahyuni Kisminingrum

Forschung im Ingenieurwesen

Maria João Alcoforado

Acta Crystallographica Section E Structure Reports Online

Xiao-Zeng Li

Anais Do Simpom

Gilberto Vieira Garcia

luis fernando olivares alcocer

Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies

Eda Karakaş

Lisa Koonin

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Elsmarieke van de Giessen

Hans Braaten

Kardiologia polska

Małgorzata Pyda

International Relations Thesis

Luis Grochocki, PhD

Case Reports

Ervin Mingomataj

Revista Cereus

Marcelo Guedes de Andrade

INTER DISCIPLINA

Monica Palacios

FEBS Letters

David Steele

PLOS Genetics

Michael Turingan

Novon: A Journal for Botanical Nomenclature

Salomao Bandeira

Siberian journal of life sciences and agriculture

Mahitap Duygu DİKBAŞ

arXiv (Cornell University)

Abhisek Bandyopadhyay

Annals of the University of Craiova: Economic Sciences Series

MARIETA STANCIU

Assets : Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Akuntansi, Keuangan dan Pajak

Prianto B . Saptono

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

404 Not found

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Title: pm2: a new prompting multi-modal model paradigm for few-shot medical image classification.

Abstract: Few-shot learning has been successfully applied to medical image classification as only very few medical examples are available for training. Due to the challenging problem of limited number of annotated medical images, image representations should not be solely derived from a single image modality which is insufficient for characterizing concept classes. In this paper, we propose a new prompting multi-modal model paradigm on medical image classification based on multi-modal foundation models, called PM2. Besides image modality,PM2 introduces another supplementary text input, known as prompt, to further describe corresponding image or concept classes and facilitate few-shot learning across diverse modalities. To better explore the potential of prompt engineering, we empirically investigate five distinct prompt schemes under the new paradigm. Furthermore, linear probing in multi-modal models acts as a linear classification head taking as input only class token, which ignores completely merits of rich statistics inherent in high-level visual tokens. Thus, we alternatively perform a linear classification on feature distribution of visual tokens and class token simultaneously. To effectively mine such rich statistics, a global covariance pooling with efficient matrix power normalization is used to aggregate visual tokens. Then we study and combine two classification heads. One is shared for class token of image from vision encoder and prompt representation encoded by text encoder. The other is to classification on feature distribution of visual tokens from vision encoder. Extensive experiments on three medical datasets show that our PM2 significantly outperforms counterparts regardless of prompt schemes and achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Insta360 X4 Review: The 8K 360 Camera You've Been Waiting For

• 8K 360 video recording
• 11K 360 timelapse recording
• Improved slow motion capability
• Impressive battery life
• Waterproof and more rugged than the X3
• Gesture control
• Upgraded editing software on mobile and PC
• More expensive
• Gets very hot when recording 8K video and 11K timelapse
• Necessary to lower resolution when shooting in low light

A 360 camera can be an awesome tool for filmmakers, and the Insta360 X4 takes the concept a huge step forward, at least on paper. Video resolution has long been the stumbling block for mainstream, affordable 360 cameras, which is why it's so exciting to see Insta360 finally bump the maximum resolution of its flagship X-series lineup to 8K, though that leaves a big question of how good that 8K actually looks.

On top of this, the X4 appears to be a serious upgrade in practically every other respect compared to the X3, which I have quite enjoyed using since its launch. The X3 was itself a big improvement over its predecessor, the X2, and Insta360 has consistently led the 360 camera market for some time now. However, even with the X3, I felt we were still a generation away from a 360 camera that could be as versatile and powerful as this type of camera promises to be, and the X4 might just be the 360 camera I've been chasing for years now. Insta360 provided a sample of the X4 for this review.

8K gets 360-video where it needs to be

My major problem with shooting 360 video has previously been primarily the limited resolution. Even shooting 5.7k with the Insta360 X3 was good for some applications, but only just barely acceptable for others. The Insta360 X4 brings a very welcome upgrade to 8K resolution, and immediately upon importing the footage onto my computer and viewing it on the big screen, I could tell just how significant that upgrade is. Where before a complex forest environment might have been muddled by lack of resolution, the X4 manages to render such scenarios with remarkable clarity when shooting at 8K.

The X4 also handles situations with high contrast much more aptly, so I had much less of an issue with blown-out highlights or crushed shadows. Even when you drop down to 5.7k or 4k to shoot slow-motion footage, or to capture video in low-light scenarios, the X4 delivers very good results. I took the X4 into a theater to record a live performance at 5.7k 30fps, and while this was an extremely challenging environment, and there was some detail lost in this extreme high-contrast environment, the result is nonetheless surprisingly good. 4K 100fps slow motion was also shockingly good looking when I tested it out, and Bullet Time mode delivers 5.7K 120fps when combined with the optional Bullet Time Accessory Bundle.

11K timelapse shooting and 72MP still photos, and the lingering issues of 360 lenses/stitching

The X4 can even go all the way up to 11K when capturing timelapse videos, which is really exciting as it means you can record a 360-degree timelapse and select many individual crops out of it while maintaining good detail. Still photography is available with resolution up to an impressive 72MP. These photos look crisp and clear, thanks to Insta360's Pureshot processing. It's great to have so much resolution to play with in post-processing.

In some shots, I did still notice the line where the two cameras' field of view are stitched together, but so long as you keep the lenses clean it does a very good job, for the most part, of presenting a seamless sphere. Flaring and exposure differences between the two sides of the camera were problems that did also rear their ugly heads, but not to a serious extent. All these problems are not serious issues, but rather factors inherent to 360 cameras that are less pronounced here than ever before in my experience.

Rugged and waterproof, but overheating is a concern

The Insta360 X4 is waterproof down to 33 feet underwater (to go further and actually film seamless 360 video you need a dive case), and features a very durable design. Key to this is the new removable lens guard system. These twist quickly and securely into place, and are a big improvement over the previous stick-on disposable lens guard system which I did not like at all. Bulbous 360 lenses are naturally vulnerable optics, and you really want to avoid scratches, so it's great to have an extra layer of protection that's easily attached and detached when using the camera in a potentially hazardous scenario, though the lens guards will still affect image quality to some extent.

The screen is large, bright, and now made from Corning Gorilla Glass, as opposed to the normal tempered glass of the Insta360 X3. This is a welcome change for me, as aside from the lenses, that's the next most vulnerable point on the camera.

For ports, you have a USB-C port for charging and data transfer hidden behind a hatch, while the microSD card slot is located inside the battery compartment. Controls and the overall layout of the X4 is pretty much the same as the X3, though the X4 is now slightly larger and heavier with a nicely textured surface on the back that makes it easier to grip.

The downside of shooting 8K video and 11K timelapses is that the camera does get very hot while doing so. However, even after long filming sessions shooting in various conditions and at different resolutions, I never did get the X4 to shut down due to overheating. It did get quite toasty, however, so it might be an issue come summer.

Tremendously long battery life, and effective image stabilization

The Insta360 X4 purportedly boasts a 67% increase in run time versus its predecessor, with up to 135 minutes of recording time at 5.7K 30fps, or 75 minutes when filming at 8K 30fps. If anything, this is an understatement, as during a nearly hour-long recording of a live performance I only used up 44% of the battery. While I never fully drained it in a single recording session, I could see it achieving over 160 minutes of continuous recording at 5.7K 30fps. The upshot is that I never felt restricted by battery life when filming with the Insta360 X4.

Insta360's Flowstate image stabilization is just as impressive as always in the X4, with it being able to deliver results as good or better than any other digital stabilization software. It produced consistently excellent results in a variety of scenarios, and sometimes achieved levels of stabilization comparable to a gimbal-equipped drone.

Software wizardry and improved microphones

My primary attention when testing and evaluating the Insta360 X4 was focused on the hardware and the results it's capable of delivering. However, that hardware is very deeply entwined with the software, and the high-quality experience with the camera was in large part due to how hard Insta360 has worked to refine its software, both in the camera and in the Android/IOS and desktop applications.

The in-camera menu navigation is slick and intuitive and has now been enhanced by AI-powered gesture and voice control. Those gestures are particularly useful when the camera is way out on the end of a 10-foot pole! The app now includes improved Quick Edit features to speed up post-processing, as well as a new AI editing function where the computer suggests edits for you. Manual editing capability is robust as always, as well as being fairly accessible to newcomers. I made good use of Motion ND, which helped add extra cinematic qualities to certain shots. An Adobe Premiere plugin is available in addition to the robust standalone desktop application.

The X4 now features some very high-quality mics that deliver excellent results that measure up well to current flagship action cameras. I would feel very comfortable filming content with this camera, even without an external mic, though it is also compatible with microphones such as the DJI Mic 2. I used it to record an orchestra, and the results were surprisingly decent.

Action camera killer?

One of the big selling points of the Insta360 X4 is that it's not just a 360 camera, it's also designed to fill the role of a traditional action camera with single-lens mode. It does so remarkably well, certainly much better than the X3, and to a point where it can go head-to-head with a GoPro and not fall too far behind. The X4 can shoot 4K at up to 60FPS, and it looks very good indeed. Its main weakness is in its slow motion capabilities, which are not as robust as those of a dedicated action camera, and something like an Insta360 Ace Pro , GoPro Hero 12 Black , or DJI Action 4 will still surpass it as an action camera.

However, taking into account the bigger picture where the X4 is an extremely capable and rugged 360 camera first, and a competent action camera second, the tradeoffs largely balance out. There's still certainly good reason to own an action camera, but with the X4 the gap between 360 cameras and single-lens action cameras has closed significantly, at least until we see what the next generation of action cameras has in store.

Expensive, but worth the cost

At $499.99, the Insta360 X4 is more expensive than its predecessor by $100. While the new camera is certainly far more capable, and certainly worth the extra cost, it does make it a more significant investment. It places the X4 at a higher price point than most action cameras, so a Hero 12 , Action 4 , or Ace Pro is going to be cheaper, but then those cameras aren't 360 cameras, so it makes sense to pay a little more for the X4.

If you're looking for a 360 camera with a larger sensor, the Insta360 One RS 1-inch is $300 more than the X4, and while that is still a better option for low light shooting, the X4's 8K capability is a massive advantage in good light. There's the aging GoPro Hero Max 360 camera, which is cheaper, but also lower resolution, and even the $800 Ricoh Theta X doesn't offer 8K recording. Essentially, the previous Insta360 X3 stacked up well with the competition up till now, while the X4 surpasses them all by a significant margin.

Key accessories to consider

Insta360 included a few new accessories to test alongside the X4, and my favorite of them is the Extended Edition Selfie Stick, which is a whopping ten feet long, yet folds down into a remarkably compact form factor. Being able to send the Insta360 X4 up can deliver shots you'd normally need a drone to capture, just without the noise and regulatory hassle associated with drones. I ended up using this giant selfie stick for most of my time testing the X4, and I would almost regard it as an essential tool for creators working with 360 cameras. Being able to go up that high quite literally elevates your footage and opens up many exciting creative possibilities.

The somewhat niche, slightly terrifying, and very fun Bullet Time Accessory Bundle is designed to be used with the camera's 5.7K 120fps slow-motion bullet time mode. The results this delivers are striking and the new system of a selfie stick attached to a rotating handle has definite advantages over the previous system, which used a retractable cord. It's something of a one-trick pony, but it does create a unique effect that can be a compelling component of a video when well implemented.

There's also a microSD card quick reader accessory available, as well as a dive housing, the latter being essential for seamless underwater 360-degree video stitching.

In the box, the X4 comes with standard lens guards (upgraded versions are available), a battery, thermo grip cover, USB Type-C cable, a protective pouch, and a lens cloth.

The Insta360 X4 is a huge step forward for 360 cameras. Shooting in 8K is just as revolutionary as I had hoped it would be, and truly this is where 8K video recording gains genuine utility to the average video creator. The extra sharpness is immediately noticeable, and it makes an enormous difference when post-processing footage, or when viewing footage in virtual reality. When viewing the even higher res 11K timelapse footage it's easy to see where 360 camera technology is headed in the future, and to have the ability to shoot such imagery even now, albeit in timelapse form, is really exciting. This high-resolution capability trickles down to improved slow-motion filming, and really the big limitation to overcome now is low light, where currently you really do have to reduce your resolution and framerate down to more mundane levels.

On practically every level, the Insta360 X4 is a leap forward both for Insta360's flagship line of 360 cameras and for mainstream 360 cameras in general. Once I'd finally sorted and edited the mountain of footage I captured with the X4 and put it together into a video, I was blown away by what I was able to create in a relatively short amount of time with the camera. If you've ever been interested in 360 photography or videography, now is the time to jump on board, and if you're wondering if you should upgrade from your existing 360 camera, the answer is yes. I've never been able to so very easily recommend a 360 camera so enthusiastically as the Insta360 X4.

The Insta360 is available for $499.99 from Insta360's online store.