Nature journals have strict structural requirements for submitted abstracts. And unfortunately, because this was Nature Neuroscience, the intended audience is

Nature journals have strict structural requirements for submitted abstracts. And unfortunately, because this was Nature Neuroscience, the intended audience is more specific, which is why you see more jargon there. Here is an extracted example from the latest issue of Science, for which the intended audience is more general: Psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia impose enormous human, social, and economic burdens. The prognosis of psychotic disorders has not substantially improved over the past decades because our understanding of the underlying neurobiology has remained stagnant. Indeed, the subjective nature of hallucinations, a defining symptom of psychosis, presents an enduring challenge for their rigorous study in humans and translation to preclinical animal models. Here, we developed a cross-species computational psychiatry approach to directly relate human and rodent behavior and used this approach to study the neural basis of hallucination-like perception in mice. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6537/eabf4740 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6537/eabf4740 It’s not a perfect comparison because Science abstracts are apparently much larger (this is just the Intro!) but it does convey my point about language.