Talk:In vivo bioreactor

Revert

As there was no justification for the revert, and to me it seems that the changes were positive, I have restored these recent edits.

It is also suspect that the editor in question, VPShastri desires to keep a version of the article in which a person named Prasad Shastri is mentioned within the first sentence. Please see WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine).

Given the above, and in the spirit of WP:BRR, I invite the user who reverted the edits to justify this revert. Many thanks, Lesion (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean 3RR? Ian Furst (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what I'm linking to any more. Desserts Task Force indeed. Facepalm. Lesion (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I meant WP:BRD, apologies. Lesion (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

User Shastri, please read WP:3RR, if you have an opinion and references please bring it to the talk page. Ian Furst (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Lesion: All changes are simply being reverted (within seconds now). Is there a process in place for this? Ian Furst (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I just put the proper warning on his talk page. If he continues reverting like this, he can be reported for edit warring, which is likely to get him blocked from editing for a while. Meanwhile, it would help if you would discuss the specific issues with the things you deleted here on the talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I will note that he admitted the COI here. I do not have time at the moment to respond; may not get to it until tomorrow. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit reversals

VPShastri. Thank you for the edits to the page. I'm attempting to bring the article in line with the manual of style for Wikipedia. It would be helpful if you listed your Conflict of interest on this talk page. Also, we follow WP:MEDMOS, (in particular techniques for this article). The one major issue is all the research cited is primary (the standard for medical articles is secondary (e.g. reviews, textbooks, Cochrane, etc...). Without secondary sources, the article could be nominated for deletion. If you have not already seen, please read WP:3RR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD to understand how the Wikipedia community builds articles. To help you understand the edits made I've listed the rationale,

• " that was conceived in the fall of 1998 by Prasad Shastri and disclosed later that year in a technology disclosure to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and subsequently filed as a patent application." - unreferenced and not important to the technique itself. If the article is built up, there is an area called History that this might fit under but with only 4 primary references it's hard to get it to that level
• "The IVB alters the conventional Tissue Engineering paradigm, by moving the entire manipulation and the formation of the tissue in vivo, resulting in autologous in vivo engineering and autologous transplantation of tissue." unreferenced claim that this is a unique paradigm. This should come from an independent secondary source. Growing bone deep to the periosteum is not unique in my opinion. See sinus lift as an example.
• "was inspired by findings in the literature that", what inspired the research is unreferenced and belongs in a history section if the article grows
• "This is the first and only example of bone tissue engineering without implantation of cells and/or growth factor augmentation to date. This engineered ectopic bone mass was then successfully transplanted in a bone defect within the same animal subject." unproven and unreferenced claim, it may be true but it needs to be supported by an independent secondary source

I hope this helps direct further edits. Regards. Ian Furst (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Received the following response on my talk page, moved to this page for discussion purposes,

Dear Ian Thank you for your suggestions. First, regard conflict of interest, I was setting the record straight. Your conclusion about unreferenced content are not correct. I would suggest that you read the papers we have published. a peer-reviewed publication, which was subsequently reiterated in a science article is not unreferenced. If you can reference your claim then it would be helpful. If you are changing content which is referenced then you have an equal and perhaps higher burden to substantiate your claim. Nad I urge you to do. There is no example of growing bone sub-periosteally by just injecting a biomaterial. Sinus lift involves remodeling of alveolar bone and the in vivo bioreactor involves formation of bone from the periosteum through intra membranous ossification. I am sure you aware of the fundamental differences. Regarding, the attribution of the invention to me, that is a fact and that is borne our by articles and the patent filings. You can check it out. (VPShastri (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC))

VPShastri - Please read about sources in WP:MEDMOS. Original peer-reviewed research is generally not acceptable for Wikipedia medical articles, especially if you're making claims of uniqueness. I've tried to work with what you posted, only to have you summarily revert everything. If this technique had appeared in secondary sources my position would be that it should be a subsection of bone grafting. Given that it is only an animal model with primary research my belief is it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Other editors have felt it's appropriate to keep, so I'm trying to improve it's style to WP:NPOV. Re the attribution of the technique to you, I'm not arguing the fact, only the relevance to a Wikipedia article. If this technique becomes commonplace, we can always add another article or section on "History of the invivo bioreactor" Ian Furst (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are no secondary sources doesn't that mean the topic is not notable? Ian, when you say "other editors felt it's appropriate to keep" -- was there an Afd? Lesion (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Strike that. I put a note on the project page and there was no response then saw one or two others working with the article and assumed they felt it should stay. My personal opinion is that primary research in an animal model reported in primary research does not meet Wikipedia standards for an article. My opinion would be to delete. 12:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Found 1 review paper on pubmed which used the term "In vivo bioreactor" [1], and considering the title is "in vitro" assume that this is not a dedicated review on this topic. There are a handful of primary sources on pubmed, but we shouldn't be using these... Suggest AfD. Lesion (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

K, new experience for me (I've taken part in the discussion but never tagged something). I think the lock is lifted tomorrow. Ian Furst (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)