Jump to content

Talk:Cancer Diagnostic Probe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 06:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Alt1: ... that Cancer Diagnostic Probe, an Iran-made medical device, has shorten breast cancer surgery in Iran?
Alt2: ... that Cancer Diagnostic Probe is an Iran-made medical device used for breast cancer surgery in Iran?
Let me know your thoughts, please.--Mhhossein talk 06:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposed to running this article on the mainpage; we should not be endorsing, spreading or advertising on the main page unproven devices, which this is, short of an independent, secondary source. The proposed hooks above do not satisfy. Without a WP:MEDRS-compliant look at this device, we have no way of knowing if it's pure quackery or commercial exploitation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the comment and the edits. I should stress that it's not a so-called "unproven device," and even alt2 is solely stating that CDP is being used in Iran, which is not a medical claim per WP:MEDRS. By the way, If you think there's a medical claim on the page or hooks needing reliable medical sources, please let us know. Otherwise, it is bizarre to call the US-patented invention "quackery or commercial exploitation". In what way do you think the hooks "do not satisfy"? --Mhhossein talk 05:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MEDRS issues (in the article) have been addressed now. I Oppose Alt1, which makes a medical claim for which there are not MEDRS sources, but I would not oppose Alt2. (Although it could be worried in a less repetitive way.)
It is an unproven methodology in terms of secondary reviews, which is what matters for Wikipedia. Re "it is bizarre to call the US-patented invention 'quackery or commercial exploitation' ", please re-read exactly what I typed, and not what you (mis)interpreted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLOP:
Source: CDP ... is based on the real-time electrochemical measurement of the hypoxia glycolysis metabolism in pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions in cavity side margins during the surgery.
Article: electrochemically measures the hypoxia glycolysis metabolism in real-time in pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions in cavity side margins.
I'm unfamiliar with DYK rules; it's not clear to me whether the character count is met of if the quoted material is supposed to be included in character count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend to misinterpret you Sandy, thanks again for the edits and the feedback. I have stroke alt1 and tried to address the CLOP issue. @Sammi Brie: Could you please do the final review for alt2? --Mhhossein talk 05:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good on my end (that is, MEDRS; not a DYK person though). Unwatching now, so pls ping me if any followup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I'm back ... it has been pointed out at WT:MED that https://iactcenter.ir/real-time-cancer-diagnostic-probe/?lang=en is a sales catalogue. A good portion of the article is cited to this source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Sandy. I could not find the mentioned discussion at WT:MED but, FYI, iCAT is actually the Iran Advanced Clinical Training (iACT) which is a "subset of Tehran University of Medical Sciences." What's wrong with it? --Mhhossein talk 05:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is buried in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Announcing script RefRenamer: replaces VE numeric refs with reasonable ref names, where I asked Mathglot to run the script to address the dreadful ref names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion Sandy is referring to can be found here. Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed the issue on the article talk page. I'm not sure if Sammi Brie wants to complete the review procedure, now that the MEDRS issues are addressed in the page. --Mhhossein talk 06:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I do. If the MEDRS issues are addressed, this can run. It's barely above 1,500 characters RPS. I'd rephrase ALT2 this way, which probably will be much more idiomatic. At least there are no medical claims made here: the probe is homegrown and used there. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2a: ... that a locally developed diagnostic probe is used for breast cancer surgeries in Iran?

Medical claims

[edit]

Hi @Spicy, in light of your comment at the DYK nomination page, I don't know if you're willing to assist with identifying the "medical claims". The claims that the device was invented and for what purpose it's been used (in Iran) does not seem to be medical claims, in my opinion. On the other hand, the claims on its efficiency, specially in comparison to other conventional methods, should be treated as medical claims. Mhhossein talk 08:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: courtesy ping. --Mhhossein talk 06:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. I asked at WT:MED for someone to run a script to clean up the dreadful ref names left from the Visual editor, and they pointed out that https://iactcenter.ir/real-time-cancer-diagnostic-probe/?lang=en is a sales catalogue. There still seem to be sourcing issues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. Nice to see you here again. No sourcing issues, I think. Iran Advanced Clinical Training (iACT) is a "subset of Tehran University of Medical Sciences." --Mhhossein talk 06:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: In contrast to the Mathglot's comment, the mentioned source is not "a product sales catalog page." As I already said, the page belongs to a clinical training center located in the Tehran University of Medical Sciences. So it's reliable enough. --Mhhossein talk 08:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a product sales info abstract to me, and it has the words "Real-time Cancer Diagnostic Probe catalogue" on it, and multiple methods of contact information at the bottom. Does it matter that it belongs to a University medical center? Whether it's technically a catalog or not, it isn't an WP:INDEPENDENT source, as this center seems to be the one promoting and soliciting business for this probe which they apparently manufacture, distribute, or license. Mathglot (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mathglot, the contact details belong to the research center, which is located in the 'Imam Khomeini hospital complex', and the iACT, as can be seen here, aims to introduce "the capabilities and promoting advanced medical equipment made in Iran and training and skills development of the country’s medical staff to use them." NO business interest is observed in the source and CDP is NOT manufactured by them rather it is a product of a private Iranian company. iACT is a training center and you can see the "Course name: Skills course for real-time detection of cancer cells during breast cancer surgery" below the page. Besides, iACT has quite similar training announcements for other made-in-Iran medical devices; see the full list here. --Mhhossein talk 05:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. There may be a cultural barrier for me in interpreting what it is; I'm probably not as used to reading these training course device descriptions, or whatever they are, as you are, and if Sandy agrees with you then I have no objection to considering it non-promotional. I still have questions about its independence however, and would rather see a secondary source that isn't from this particular training center. If the device is important as claimed, there should be plenty of sources available. Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mathglot, I'm not in a position to agree or disagree, as I don't regularly follow DYK, don't understand their rules, and don't know why they are even interested in promoting/running most of what they do on the mainpage. I say leave this one up to the DYK regulars; I am uncomfortable with mainpage content including a medical device for which there are no secondary MEDRS sources, but I'm not sure that fits with DYK rules, where anything goes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, and neither do I. Mhhossein, sounds like it's clear sailing for whatever you (pl.) want to do. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I explained, my understanding of the source is that it's not promotional in nature. Will remove the tag. --Mhhossein talk 06:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cancer_Diagnostic_Probe&oldid=1206530536"