Talk:Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis

External

External link seems to be broken, can someone fix this?

Is this actually CIPA?

We say: "CIPA is extremely rare. There are only 35 reported cases in the United States and more than 300 in Japan because it occurs more often in genetically homogeneous societies. It is also found in Vittangi, a Swedish village in Kiruna Municipality in northern Sweden, where nearly 40 cases have been reported; however, the disorder found in Vittangi may be of a different kind because those affected can perspire."

If this disorder does not come with anhidrosis, how is it CIPA? Skittle 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't CIPA, its just CIP, which is linked to in the "See Also." I'll go ahead and move it. Trance Blossom (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

CIPA is not CIP,

CIP: Congenital "indifference" to pain CIPA: Congenital "insensitivity" to pain with anhidrosis

CIPA caused by neuropathies of peripheral nerves, by mutation of NTRK1 gene.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=256800 CIP caused by channelopathies of nerves, by mutation of SCN6A gene. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=243000

by bc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.13.127 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And Yet the CIP page lists "insensitivity" in its namespace, not indifference, and lists that there are two types: Insensitivity AND indifference. If it were just me, I'd actually work on merging this article with the CIP article. Perhaps subsections are required? CIP vs. CIPA? Both seem to be very similar, but with a few differences. 64.122.15.114 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad statistics ?

According to the article, the odds of being born with CIPA are 1 in 125 million. Yet there are apparently at least 387 living cases, out of a total population of 6+ billion. Which makes in closer to 1 in 15 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrik BP (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Naloxone - is this definately correct

Just to check that the mentioned treatment with naloxone is actually correct. Naloxone is a very short acting opiod antagonist and needs to be given by continuous IV drip for the treatment of opiod overdose due to it's low plasma half life. This leads me to suspect that use of it in treatment of CIPA is inpractical. I would be grateful of clarification on this point. Perhaps what is actually used is a longer acting opiod antagonist such as Naltrexone? (which used in the outpatient management of some addicts) If someone could verify this I would be extremely greatful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.191 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

References

There are two references as of now. Both of them refer to fiction TV shows!! What is up with that?? The TV shows can refer to the medical page but not the other way around. The cases described aren't even real. I think these references should be removed from the article and be replaced by scientific publications. I'll wait a few days to do that myself if there is no opposition. Lukas 04:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever changed it, "In fiction" instead of "References" sounds acceptable to me.Lukas 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of Cases - Incidence

The article states that there are sixty CIPA cases in the United States, but at least one of the external links states that there are only 35. Which is correct? Is there a doctor in the house?!

Can someone put in a reference to the difference in incidence between the US and Japan? A difference between 84 and 300 (especially given population differences) makes me wonder if about "racial" genetic differences.

Merger proposal

For: I think this article and the article for Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP) overlap quite a bit; CIPA should just be a subsection on the CIP page. --Trance Blossom (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Against: In that case, shouldn't they all be merged under HSAN. After all, CIP and CIPA are both HSAN disorders, and none of the three pages is all that long... Dlmccaslin (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Against: Please keep HSAN, FD and CIPA as distinct articles. The HSANs are being actively researched in the real world, and the articles are getting attention. (Hopefully each distinct HSAN will one day have a featured article!) As I understand it, the Congenital insensitivity to pain article is about the pure forms of congenital analgesia (where no other symptoms are present), and related conditions with absence/reduction of pain sensation that have not been classified as HSANs. --Zigger «º» 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Against: They should be kept in different articles. Congenital Insensitivity to Pain (CIP) is a genetic disorder causing channelopathy while Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhydrosis (CIPA) is a genetic disorder of affecting the formation of nerve growth factor, or other genetic disorders. Because of this, they will have different information under cause, incidence, clinical presentation, clinical course, and treatments (treatments directed at channelopathy disease and treatments directed at lack of nerve growth factors will only help the corresponding groups). The only similarity is the clinical symptom of insensitivity to pain. Because o fthis, I feel they should be kept as different articles. I found an article on CIPA that found a genetic disorder causing lack of functioning nerve growth factor that is not listed in the article, and will try to figure out how to add to the CIPA article. April 5, 2009

Against: - they should be kept in different articles as they are different disorders. kilbad (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Against: - Agreed. These are not the same. "with anhidrosis" could be a section of "Condenital Insensitivity to pain" but otherwise they should be kept separate. -Remmy 16 April 2009

Against: - Seem quite different sets of conditions to me --CopperKettle 08:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Some Believe"?

What kind of an encyclopedia entry is this "some believe that [...] is common among Ashkenazi Jews"? There are scientific studies that provide such information, and then it's not a matter of belief, but rather of scientific evidence (which then can be examined by other scientists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.35.183 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Androphenic"

"Androphenic"? Can someone who knows that this means replace it with a better word. If you google it, there are 7 results, all of which are quotations from this page. This doesn't really give someone a realistic chance of understanding the opening paragraph. Thanks very much. 81.179.6.246 (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: The above (sorry for edit, can't find how to post separately), I have deleted the entire sentence: " Many scientists believe that this condition is both androphenic and supplementary to the thyroid system." This is because not a single part of it makes any sense and is generally misleading and uninformative. The original author should re-state his point when he finds a better way to express it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.85.179 (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

contradiction template

I have added the {{contradict}} template, because of the following statements:

The odds of being born with this condition are 1 in 125 million.

There are 84 documented living cases in the United States; there are more than 300 in Japan.

The population of the US is about 300 million; of Japan, maybe 130 million. If the probability is 1 in 125 million, one would expect maybe three cases in the US and one in Japan. The chance that there would be more than 80 in the US and 300 in Japan is negligible (I'll work it out if anyone wants to know). In fact, one would expect fewer than 50 cases in the whole world, with a standard deviation of maybe 5 7, so the chance of even 80 cases in the whole world would again be negligible very small. --Trovatore (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you factor in this notion:

"Most infants afflicted with the disorder do not live past 3 years of age, and those who do rarely pass age 25."

Then those numbers for documented living cases make the 1 in 125 million figure look ever farther off. If only the author had cited their information... -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we don't (or at least I don't) know which numbers are wrong. Maybe it's the number of cases that's wrong; maybe there really are say just one to five cases in the US. The 84 and 300 numbers could be straight nonsense, or they could be counting other conditions than CIPA in the strict sense. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know either, but I'm going to guess that it's probably a matter of old data versus new data. The 1 in 125 million figure gets quite a few hits on a google search, including many that aren't just quoting the Wiki, so I would guess that it's some old, published number. The number of cases could be newer...or just plain made up for all we know. -- Fyrefly (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: (Above statement) Your statement about how the numbers do not make sense in that the United States should have far more cases reguarding CIP(A)in result of a larger population, however, if you take into account the 1945 attacks with Nuclear weapons (Atomic bombs) made by the United States there is much room for genetic mutations in the population in the future in result of the Nuclear attack. The United States has never sustained a nuclear attack so therefore we would expect far less numbers of CIP or any sickness brought on by genetic mutations reguardless of population size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.166.59 (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding the point. If the probability is 1 in 125 million, then the number of cases in BOTH of those countries should be far, far lower than either 80 or 300. The comparison of their populations and whether or not they've been exposed to radiation is irrelevant to this conradiction. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

if there is a problem with the math, then it is an error in math and the results are not consistent with the statistics given. (unsigned)

What are you talking about? -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In the media

Anyone else think we should remove this whole section? Personally, I don't like "Pop culture" sections in medical, unless the connection is extremely clear and significant. Ideally, that is, I think we should limit such info to media where the disorder/disease plays a major role throughout the work; so, that would be if a major character in a movie had the problem, and for a TV show, only when a regular/recurring character had the problem. It seems pretty WP:UNDUE to me to have, for example, House appear on every article about every obscure disease, since the very nature of the show requires that they mine medical science for rare problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Really?

I mean, nowhere in the source guidelines does it say we admit "facts" from fiction television entertainment programs. I say, if you can't find anything in a legitimate source, this entire article has multiple issues.K80theshade (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)