Talk:Down syndrome/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Researches

These links may help? [1] [2] [3] OccultZone (Talk) 03:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Occult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image

The boy in the image is using the drill incorrectly. His hand is on the chuck while the bit is engaged to a screw. Changing a bit and driving a screw are mutually exclusive actions, therefore he is either attempting to use the drill incorrectly or pretending to use it. This image and its description are misleading and possibly offensive and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.37.44 (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, not this again? Alternatively, the lad could be just holding the drill steady while he lines up the drill bit into the screw head. You'll note that his finger is not actually on the drive trigger, so he's not even pretending to use the drill at that point. It's common practice to support the drill as best you can while aligning bit & contact point. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why this matters? This article is about Down syndrome not drill usage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

Please change the "Diagnosis:Before Birth" section to include the following additional sentence because pregnant women and medical providers looking at the entry might want to know what medically recommended resources should be available to them if a diagnosis of Down syndrome is suspected or confirmed. Thank you!

Diagnosis

Before birth

When screening tests predict a high risk of Down syndrome, a more invasive diagnostic test (amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling) is needed to confirm the diagnosis. If Down syndrome occurs in 1 in 500 pregnancies and the test used has a 5% false positive rate, this means that of 28 women who test positive on screening only 1 will have Down syndrome confirmed. If the screening test has a 2% false positive rate this means that 1 out of 10 who test positive on screening having a fetus with DS. Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are more reliable; however, they carry an increased risk of miscarriage of between 0.5 and 1%. There is also an increased risk of limb problems in the offspring due to the procedure. The risk from the procedure is greater the earlier it is performed and thus amniocentesis is not recommended before 15 weeks gestational age and chorionic villus sampling before 10 weeks gestational age.

For pregnant women who get a test result confirming or indicating an increased chance that the fetus has Down syndrome, professional genetics organizations recommend the following resources: the Lettercase "Understanding a Down Syndrome Diagnosis" book, the Brighter Tomorrows website, and the American Academy of Pediatrics “Health-care supervision for children with Down syndrome” clinical report. [5][6]

References:

5. Gregg AR, Gross SJ, Best RG, Monaghan KJ, Bajaj K, Skotko BG, Thompson, BH, Watson MS. ACMG statement on noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genet Med 15:395-398; April 4, 2013; doi:10.1038/gim.2013.29 https://www.acmg.net/docs/nips-gim_galley_text_130301.pdf

6. Sheets KB, Crissman BG, Feist CD, et al. Practice guidelines for communicating a prenatal or postnatal diagnosis of down syndrome: recommendations of the national society of genetic counselors. J Genet Couns 2011;20:432–441. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618060

Shmeredith38 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are recommending? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah I get it now. We do not typically add text like this within articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We could add this page in the further reading section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay looked at the refs

• http://lettercase.org/get-the-booklet/ is to complicated to access. Thus not a suitable link.
• http://brighter-tomorrows.org/ requires registration and I do not see any content.
• The third link http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/%20content/128/2/393 is dead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ethics Edit

EDIT: Under the "Society and Culture" heading, "Ethics" subheading, the article states: "It will then be the mother's choice, based on her personal belief, regarding how much or how little screening she wishes." This should read: "It will then be the woman's choice, based on her personal belief, regarding how much or how little screening she wishes." The use of "mother" is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmg3kf (talk • contribs) 00:46, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Please always sign your Talk page posts by typing four tildes after your comments. Your suggested edit is  Done. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Termination" versus "abortion"

Abortion is before viability. Termination of pregnancy is bother before and after viability. Thus termination is preferred. See [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Abortion is seen by some including myself as taking a life, the term aborted I strongly believe seems more accurate than termination which I and others see as a watering down word for abortion.--Smokeyfire (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

Termination is used by the high quality sources. Thus we will use it as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom and Europe

under Abortion rates the article states: About 92% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated. with a reference to Mansfield, C; Hopfer, S; Marteau, TM (Sep 1999).

• 1st, the reference literature is some what out dated, being published in 1999 and looking at data from the 1980s and 1990s. The article could include some year reference there or maybe there is newer data.
• 2nd, does this 92% correct for the United Kingdom and for Europe as a whole (including UK as part of Europe)? In the study is there a separate evaluation of the UK? Does the rate also apply to European countries like Russia or Turkey or does it refer to the EU 15 (of 1999) or only Western Europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.222.66 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

congenital or genetic or both?

I am not an expert and know little about this topic. The opening line says that Downs syndrome is a genetic disorder, other sources specify it is a congenital disorder. Is it possible to be both? Are we correct?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Both Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Title picture

Why is the title picture of a child assembling a bookcase? I don't care if it proves the capabilities of a Down's syndrome minor or something--it seems like a frivolous excuse to digress from the topic of the article.--86.148.19.3 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think the picture should be of? A person sitting there doing nothing? Centerone (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a better picture you are willing to release under an open license? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Please add upslanted Palpebral fissure to signs"

Palpebral fissure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.247.31 (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2014

The preposition 'to' is missing from the first sentence under the Fertility heading. Please change to read "...lower rates of fertility relative to those who are unaffected." Ith!nk (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Date Conflict

In the "History" section appears: "Édouard Séguin described it as separate from cretinism in 1944"

I think Édouard Séguin died in 1880, which would make it unlikely that he described anything as anything in 1944. Or are you referring to a different Édouard Séguin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.185.89 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit in Society and Culture / Ethics

In Society and Culture / Ethics, it says "Protestants often see abortion as acceptable when a fetus has Down syndrome" and cites an encyclopedia. The actual Encyclopedia reference says "many religious traditions, including many Protestant denominations, deem abortion ... permissible. There is a huge divide in Protestant circles (that fall along similar lines to gay marriage) with conservative Protestants outright rejecting abortion and liberal ones embracing it. Because of this, I think the text should read "some Protestant denominations see abortion as acceptable when a fetus has Down syndrome". I do not think the source is taking care in weighting denominations by populations, so it is inappropriate to say "many Protestants" or "many Protestant denominations."

2602:306:BD8A:5990:C139:958E:A2F:B94A (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Grey Gordon

Thanks good points. Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ethics Section Non-Neutral

I just skimmed the Down syndrome article and found that the Ethics section contains some opinions that are stated as facts. Sentences quoting reference 107 are stated as fact, such as the second sentence: "people should at least be given information about it." The article itself is titled "Current opinion..."

The overall sense of the ethics section comes across as promoting the view that termination of a Down pregnancy is ethical. I believe equal text length should be added to present the opposing viewpoint, that it is not ethical to terminate a Down pregnancy, and that therefore screening for Down syndrome is a moot point.

Alas, I am at work and do not have time currently to find the proper sources to write those paragraphs myself, but I would encourage someone of like viewpoint to "neutralize" this section by presenting fully the "unethical" viewpoint.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calledupward (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2015

Genetic disorder
If known, causal type of mutation and the chromosome involved
Disorder	Down syndrome
Mutation	C
Chromosome	21
P – Point mutation, or any insertion/deletion entirely inside one gene D – Deletion of a gene or genes C – Whole chromosome extra, missing, or both (see Chromosome abnormality) T – Trinucleotide repeat disorders: gene is extended in length Further information: List of genetic disorders

96.28.43.27 (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We describe this in the text. A box not needed IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox(s) are generally considered a desirable element to be included in most articles. The case that information given by an Infobox —is also inside the text of an article, is nearly universal. The Infobox Genetic Disorder should be added to the article. Users should improve it, then it should be made into a template for use on other Genetic Disorder articles. 96.28.43.27 (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

We already have an infobox and do not need another one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

1. The Mutation article appears to have 2 templated infoboxs. Is there a policy that an article should not have 2 infoboxs ?
2. The article does need another infobox —to present to the reader that this article is a Genetic disorder topic. Just as the Mutation article infoboxs —presents to the reader that the article is an Evolution and Genetics topic. 96.28.43.27 (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

While we disagree than. Yes the mutation article should have one of these boxes removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy against having 2 infoboxs and the Mutation article is an example of the benefit and common practice of having 2 infoboxs in an article. Your arguments for not including the requested infobox are quixotic. 96.28.43.27 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To be more clear, that infobox is not useful. The content is already in the text. The infobox is therefore not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1. How many items of unique data not appearing in the text, must an infobox contain to be acceptable ?
2. May an infobox contain any non unique data also appearing in the text and still be acceptable ?
3. Is there a policy in regards to items 1 and 2 ? 96.28.43.27 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Common in cousin marriage

Can we mention that is more common in cousin marriage as shown here or is this source not considered reputable?--88.104.136.143 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a terribly reliable source, and even then, the statistics seem pretty low, so they may not have statistically significant data. Of course, it's impossible to really tell where they got their information from anyways. Centerone (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Most common

Which one is true? Klinefelter syndrome is the most common chromosomal disorder, and it occurs in 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births
Also, Down syndrome is the most common chromosome abnormality in humans,[3] occurring in about one per 1000 babies born each year.[2] One or both of these need to be phrased "is one of the most common" 73.188.22.194 (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Autism

Why would Down syndrome individuals have a higher incidence of being Autistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.251.45 (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't know. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service | my evil deads) 09:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Need to confirm positive cell-free fetal DNA test

I moved the following sentence in box to here, because I'm not sure the false positive rate as described in the recent article at [5] was known at the time of issuing these guidelines. I think we need updated guidelines on this statement. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmatory testing by invasive techniques (amniocentesis, CVS) is still required to confirm the screening result.

The ref you mention is a primary source. No evidence that this recommendation has changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So lets run the numbers. Say 1:1000 women have a preg with DS. False positives occur in 0.3%. Lets say it picks up all cases.

You test 1000 women. You find one child with DS and your test comes back positive for 3 children without DS. Do you offer further testing or just abort all 4 pregs with positive tests? You or course offer further testing. Would also prefer a secondary source for the 0.3% number Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good points, it does deserve its place in the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate that false positives need to be mentioned in the article but the present way that it's expressed is really quite poor. There needs at an absolute minimum to be a preamble to give it context. The way that this says 'If one in five hundred pregnancies have down syndrome and if the false positive rate is 5%...' which doesn't adequately frame the issues in testing, it just says it like a math problem. There needs to be a preamble explaining that false positives present a significant ethical problem for parents and doctors because even a 95% reliable test is likely to produce more false positives than genuine positives, given the relative rarity of DS. Then present those numbers as an example of the problem - Only 1 in 500 genuine cases, so even a very accurate test with a false-positive rate of over 99% percent will still throw up more false positives than positives and this results in a significant problem for prenatal diagnosis. Just launching into the states with no context makes it sounds like we neither know how common down syndrome is or how common false positives are; its very abstract and wordy and doesn't clearly express the issue at all.86.166.230.248 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Down syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vinethemonkey (talk · contribs) 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and this is Vinethemonkey. I'll review what you have.

References

All references are good. I see no problem in them. There are enough of them to be believed.

Research section

It seems to be a stub, even with the outside link. You could either delete it or turn it into a smaller section. You could also fix this up and put more words in it.

YDone: OccultZone has done this. Please confirm of references and make sure none of them are dead links.

Neutrality

It seems to be good.

Length of article

It is lengthy enough for someone to understand the concept of it.

Pictures

It is good enough.

I'm not really sure if a kid wearing a bowl cut putting a bookshelf together is the best image for down syndrome. 2601:190:1:2610:2960:B419:F99C:316A (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Other comments

Check to make sure that none of the references are dead links or lead to a wikipedia page.

Use of list is good.

Decision for now

I will wait for the fixing of the research section (it's too short). Other then that, I'm satisfied with this article.

@Vinethemonkey:, check now? OccultZone (Talk) 19:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I'm afraid I do not understand you. What do you mean by check now?VINETHEMONKEY 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Vinethemonkey

Check Down_syndrome#Research. OccultZone (Talk) 19:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What was added to the research section was already covered in the rest of the article. We can write more about the issue of stem cell transplantation as this is an active area of research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a bit more and we have a link to a subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Final decision

It is now a good article. Congratulations!VINETHEMONKEY 04:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Vinethemonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinethemonkey (talk • contribs)

Two missed subjects

Although I am an editor on wikipedia, I came to this article to find more information about DS. I appluad all editors for the fine quality of this article, it was well organized and detailed. I found it lacking in two areas, 1) why is that DS individuals have a specific "look" about them? It seems above and beyond the "flattened nasal bridge" and "slanted eyes". My wife often puts it that "people with DS look like they are related". I do not believe this characteristic is explored in this article. 2) the opening does not state that DS is hereditary, and the artcile goes to some link to discuss the chances of a child being born with DS. However, a single line under fertility says, "Without assisted reproductive technologies, around half of the children of someone with Down syndrome will also have the syndrome." I think this is something that needs better clarification.StarHOG (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It says under genetics "The parents of the affected individual are typically genetically normal." Fertility is poor in people with Downs "As of 2006, three instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children and 26 cases of females having children have been reported."

I will add the first line to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc, but I hated that sentence, too. Over what period of time is that report, and is it world wide, in the UK, in the US? I'm certian that, worldwide, since the dawn of time, there have probably been more thn 26 DS females who have had children. StarHOG (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the number of cases that have been reported in the medical literature before 2006. The exact number is not known but it is small. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Prognosis

No one gives the percentage that graduates from highschool. It is strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In adulthood about 20% in the United States do paid work in some capacity.[11][98] In Europe, however, less than 1% have regular jobs.[96]

11 does not support the claim as far as I can tell, and 98 and 96 are unavailable for me. 76.64.13.25 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just because a citation is not easily available does not mean it needs fixing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Down(without the apostrophe s) syndrome?

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere but, isn't the proper name "Down's syndrome" because it was named after John Langdon Down, its original classifier?Cebr1979 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable at all in this subject, but this section in the article has a wealth of sources about the history of the various names. Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Emotional range" a belittling sentence?

Not here to have an argument but to ask for more opinions on this. There is a sentence under the "Neurological" section that rubs me the wrong way. It says "People with Down syndrome experience a wide range of emotions." To me at least, this sounds rather condescending. A wide range of emotions is something shared by nearly all humans. (I want to say all but I won't presume that.) The sentence struck me as "Isn't this interesting, people with Down syndrome are kind of like 'normal' people!" If the consensus among editors is that a wide range of emotions is a human trait, and it doesn't need to be specified that people with Down syndrome share that trait with other humans, I would recommend that sentence be deleted. Then the sentence following could be changed from "While generally happy, symptoms of depression and anxiety may develop in early adulthood" to "While people with Down syndrome are generally happy [cheerful?], symptoms of depression and anxiety may develop in early adulthood." (I also prefer the term "cheerful" over "happy" because, once again, to me personally, "cheerful" denotes a general attitude and outlook of "Life is pretty nice" while "happy" is more an emotional response to given circumstances.) I won't make any of these changes without discussion from other editors first. Jojopeanut (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, tone-wise or not, the second sentence I mentioned ("While generally happy, symptoms of depression and anxiety may develop in early adulthood") is incorrect grammatically. The subject is "symptoms" and symptoms of depression and anxiety are not generally happy. So I am changing that to "While people with Down syndrome are generally happy, symptoms of depression and anxiety may develop in early adulthood." I would still like to hear discussion on whether "cheerful" is a better term and whether the preceding sentence should be removed as biased in its insinuation. Jojopeanut (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)