Most posts start with me seeing a headline, paper, or argument and realizing I do not fully get it yet. This is the basic process I use to turn that into an article.
I get ideas from medical news, new studies, and random questions that come up while I am reading. I usually check STAT News, Nature, PubMed, and whatever I can access through school. My dad is a doctor, so when a study sounds impressive but I am not sure what it would actually mean in a hospital, I can ask him to explain the clinical side.
A topic is worth writing about when I keep thinking about it after I close the tab. If I cannot explain why it matters in normal language, that is usually the sign I should spend more time with it.
I try to read the actual study before I read too many articles about it. The abstract is helpful, but the methods and limitations are usually where the important details are. That is where you see the sample size, what kind of study it was, and whether the result is as strong as the headline makes it sound.
If the full paper is locked, I look for it on PubMed Central or try to find another review paper that explains the same idea. I do not want to base a whole article on a press release.
One study can be interesting without being the final answer. After I read it, I look for other papers on the same question and try to see whether the results line up. If something is brand new or only tested in a small group, I say that instead of acting like it is settled.
I also try to find criticism. Sometimes the most useful part of researching is finding the person who says, "This is cool, but here is the problem." That usually makes the article better.
I do not want the articles to sound like a textbook, but I also do not want to dumb everything down. I usually start by explaining the mechanism, because once the biology or technology makes sense, the rest of the article is easier to follow.
After I draft, I reread it and ask two questions: would someone my age understand what I am saying, and would someone who knows the field think I am being fair? If the answer to either one is no, I need to rewrite it.
I add sources because I want readers to be able to check me. I am still learning, so I think it is important to show where the information came from instead of writing like I magically know everything.
I try to publish every week and alternate between AI in Medicine and Anabolics. If a draft feels rushed or I am not confident in the research yet, I would rather hold it than post something just to keep the schedule.