Talk:Ohmefentanyl

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Ohmefentanyl.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article was nominated for deletion on May 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was KEEP.

The 3-Me analog of fentanyl (3-MeF) was first introduced by Paul Janssen,^[1] which has been recently revisited by Slavic researchers.^[2] QSAR reveals that the β-OH was first incorporated into 3-MeF because this pharmacophore had previously been shown to raise the potency of closely-related piperidine based narcotics^[3] such as phenoperidine, for example. AFAIK, ohmefentanyl was first reported by Chinese chemists in 1979.^[4] Since that time, both Chinese, and also American scientists, submitted the first elaborate evaluations on OMF isomer variations in 1995, in the JMC.^[5]^[6]

References

^ [1] J. Med. Chem.; 1974; 17(10); 1047-1051
^ [2] J. Serb. Chem.; 2004; 69(7) 511-526
^ [3] J. Med. Chem.; 1962; 5(5); 913-919
^ [4] Scienta Sinica Vol. XXIV No. 5 pp 710-721 (May 1981)
^ [5]J. Med. Chem.; 1995; 38(18); 3652-3659.
^ [6] J. Med. Chem.; 1995; 38(9); 1547-1557

Article deletion

This article was deleted by speedy request of the author during AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohmefentanyl, then recreated after the editors block time was over [[|User_talk:Nuklear#Block]][7]. Signed Jeepday 14:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Why are article sections titled after Chinese researchers then followed by sections of their original research?Research data —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I already forgot (talk • contribs) 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not remove the original research tag. The article still contains blatantly obvious statements to support the tag such as "In the previous study, we employed physical dependence index to quantitatively compare physical dependence potential of opiates in mice" etc. -- I already forgot talk 16:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A partial search has found that user user:Nuklear has been cutting a pasting text from research articles into this one. I deleted two sections after finding word for word sections in other articles and have decided to list the article for speedy deletion after finding more duplicate text from other articles. There would be nothing left of the article after removing the copyvio material so afd was the only option.-- I already forgot talk 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely does seem to be a lot of OR issues - it reads like an honours thesis instead of a synopsis of academic literature on the subject. Orderinchaos 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably correct, but...

I'm not seeing the actual copyvio beyond the final section of the article (about 1/3 of it) which was clearly a near-exact copy of [8] and has thus been removed by myself. Without being an expert on the subject (I'm just an admin going through CSD requests), I tried numerous cross-text searches with this and the other two articles cited ([9] , [10]) but was unable to find specific matches. Could you please point to a part which clearly does utilise parts of those articles? Once that's done, feel free to renew the CSD tag. Orderinchaos 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, look in the history and you will see I removed two large sections as well [11][12] so that would indicate that approx 3/4 or more of the article was confirmed copyvio. In addition, all of the copyvio text has been written with the same format as what's left in the article so I'm almost certain the final text is a copyvio as well. I've found similar headings on external articles that may contain the text in this article but I must be a member of the organization to view the document so I can't verify if it’s a copy or not. I'll force myself to assume good faith here... I'll give it a break.-- I already forgot talk 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it didn't look like such a difficult and detailed topic (my own field is politics, history and business) I'd suggest a complete rewrite, or a restyling of the material to reflect scientific opinion on the matter in a way suitable for an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 06:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t worry about it. The article is owned by what seems to be a super vandal. Just sit back and enjoy the rather fascinating technique. -- I already forgot talk 07:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing copyvio

A bunch of this is a direct ripoff of an article titled "Effect of chronic treatment of ohmefentanyl stereoisomers on cyclic AMP formation in Sf9 insect cells expressing human μ-opioid receptors" bu Zhong-Hua Liu et al. I'm going to clear out all the stuff copied from that article. --70.101.23.194 05:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1] J. Med. Chem.; 1974; 17(10); 1047-1051

[2] [2] J. Serb. Chem.; 2004; 69(7) 511-526

[3] [3] J. Med. Chem.; 1962; 5(5); 913-919

[4] [4] Scienta Sinica Vol. XXIV No. 5 pp 710-721 (May 1981)

[5] [5]J. Med. Chem.; 1995; 38(18); 3652-3659.

[6] [6] J. Med. Chem.; 1995; 38(9); 1547-1557

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]