Jump to content

Talk:Trisomy X

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Triple X syndrome)
Former featured article candidateTrisomy X is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleTrisomy X has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 10, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 14, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that one in a thousand women have three X chromosomes, but only 10 percent of them know it?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Copyedit

[edit]

This article lacks a flow when reading. Many sentences are too short and could be combined. For example, two sentences in the second line of the article could be combined to read "Those affected by Triple X Syndrome are often taller than average, but there are typically no other physical abnormalities." There are a few missing commas throughout the article. A sentence under "Psychological" should read "On average, those affected have IQs that are 20 points lower than normal." Ddesalvo2016 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Drew DeSalvo[reply]

Protection

[edit]

Of the last 250 edits to this page at least 170 were vandalism and its correction. People are obviously not finding the topic they are looking for. Have protected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2017

[edit]

First paragraph, third sentence: Change "Usually there is no other physical differences" to "Usually there are no other physical differences" Shbert (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thankyou for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


US of A irrelevant data

[edit]

In what way does the bit under the paragraph " Epidemiology" mentioning that; " On average, five to ten girls with triple X syndrome are born in the United States each day." contribute to clarification of the epidemiological aspect, unless that rate is somehow disproportional to the average ? ( which, in case, isn't mentioned ) I suggest either to delete that sentence or add numbers covering more globally. Flight714 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2018

[edit]

49.14.132.172 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dolotta (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential renaming for articles relating to polysomy X

[edit]

Requested move 28 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: 49,XXXXX is MOVED to Pentasomy X, while there is NO CONSENSUS to move Triple X syndrome (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– As it stands, the articles regarding polysomy X conditions are inconsistently named. The ideal protocol for all three major polysomy X conditions would be naming them [number]somy X, as is common for aneuploidies not better known by another name -- that is, the pages would be Trisomy, Tetrasomy, and Pentasomy X. The present article titles are Triple X syndrome, Tetrasomy X, and 49,XXXXX.

While all three conditions are known by various names, and Trisomy X in particular has a genuine claim to 'Triple X syndrome' as an equally or more accessible name, the current disparity in names is a detriment to the user-friendliness and accessibility of all three articles. I have recommended use of the '[number]somy X' format, but a 47,XXX/48,XXXX/49,XXXXX format is also possible (though would be less accessible), or a formal syndrome name if a well-known one happened to exist for any of the relevant disorders. However, the present situation is far from optimal. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources, it appears that "Triple X syndrome" is the WP:Common name for this topic (Trisomy X). This article could continue with that name while renaming the other article "Pentasomy X." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major article edits

[edit]

Once the renaming debate is over, I plan to make some major edits to this page and the other pages regarding polysomy X syndromes for quality purposes. This article isn't bad, per se, but I'd argue it's a lot closer to the Start than B classification, and most sections can be massively expanded or revamped. I'd WP:BEBOLD and dive into it after the move, but I just want to make sure there isn't anyone who's particularly married to any short/undersourced sections or has their own plans to improve this and related articles. Also, given its status as a semi-protected article that previously saw extensive vandalism due to the name's connotations, I figured I'd leave a statement on the talk page so nobody gets surprised when the edit history reveals substantial changes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

[edit]

37.106.86.121 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018

[edit]

2405:204:A40C:3232:0:0:886:30A5 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

[edit]

Please add a remark on autism like features in triple X syndrome, also in adults: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.8[Opens in a new window] to the references on psychological problems. DrTripleXsyndrome (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 April 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triple X syndrome → Trisomy X – Three years ago now, this (as bundled with the pentasomy X move) closed as no consensus. I think it's time to revisit the topic again, considering recent work on these articles, the longstanding name consistency for the other disorders, and the nuances of WP:COMMONNAME.

The matter of "what's the single most common name for this disorder?" (which is a slightly different thing to the COMMONNAME policy, which explicitly discusses both ambiguity and contexts where a less common name is appropriate) is ambiguous, but points overall to trisomy X. NORD, Orphanet, and AXYS use "trisomy X". Mayo, Medline, and Cleveland use "triple X syndrome". Unique uses both. My consistent impression is that patient organizations have a strong preference away from 'triple X syndrome', and this is reflected in much of the literature, which for sex chromosome aneuploidies is intertwined enough with those organizations that it's difficult to draw a fine line. The publications of the researchers most preeminent in this field trend towards trisomy X, see e.g. Tartaglia (random papers drawn from that sample: 1, 2). Trisomy X is the term used by the eXtraordinarY Kids Program, one of the major evaluation and treatment programs for sex chromosome aneuploidies. Overall, although "triple X syndrome" has nontrivial use, the preference in recent years and amongst those who work directly in this field is away from it and towards "trisomy X".

In addition, there's the consistency argument. Tetrasomy X and pentasomy X have been at the polysomy titles for four and three years respectively without issue, and standardizing the set by having all three in the same place can only be a positive. There's also an argument for conciseness here (two words over three).

Overall, I think our article policies point strongly in the direction that "trisomy X" is the preferable name. It's the preference amongst patient and support organizations, at worst equal to the current title on the grand scale, and consistent with our other usage. It's also, well, a much less awkward phrasing, which doesn't hurt. Vaticidalprophet 06:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment generally speaking Vaticidalprophet makes a good point above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AXYS is titled "About 47,XXX (Trisomy X)" and uses 47,XXX more than it does Trisomy X. GARD uses "47 XXX syndrome". Searching PubMed article titles (trisomy x, triple x, 47,XXX) produces significantly more papers for the latter. (Btw, Pubmed ignores the "," or "-" in a name, so that doesn't affect the results). Searching the whole text (removing [ti]) similarly shows a strong preference for the latter, though it is possible some are referring to the karyotype rather than talking about the syndrome. It seems to be quite a mess. For example this paper can't make its mind up which of the three terms to use, and one wonders if its three authors couldn't agree and just rolled some dice each time. This paper says "Trisomy X, otherwise known as 47,XXX" but then consistently uses 47,XXX afterwards. You mention Tartaglia but their profile includes just one paper with "Trisomy X" in the title in the last 10 years, and one with "Triple X" in the last 10 years. The former consistently refers to "trisomy X syndrome", which they abbreviate TXS, rather than just "Trisomy X". The latter interchangeably says "females with 47,XXX" and "females with Triple X", and adds "syndrome" to that half the time.
    When you say patient organizations dislike 'triple X syndrome', can you link to sources for this? Do you have explicit evidence of a shift, such as perhaps old versions of a website on Archive.org or editions of a book using one term and newer versions using another. I appreciate the desire to avoid the porn association, but perhaps "trisomy x" hasn't caught on because "trisomy" is such an opaque jargon term. -- Colin°Talk 17:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support moving this page to another name. I don't have a strong preference between Trisomy X, Trisomy X syndrome, or 47,XXX. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trisomy X, oppose 47,XXX as I feel that is not an intuitive name and less recognizable. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams[3]. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rreagan007, to be honest, the numbers in the ngram are so tiny, that I think you are just seeing noise. The British English corpus shows both terms equal, and the US one only shows a 3x difference, but I don't know how many words extra that is. It could be one book chapter or one or two papers. To give you an example, PubMed only showed 4 papers published in 2020 with one term in the title and 2 papers with the other term. We are at the level of tossing a coin three times and trying to conclude if it is fair. -- Colin°Talk 08:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Ajpolino (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. And the recent-years n-gram stats should be discounted as heavily influenced by Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Some1 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandbox rewrite

[edit]

This article gets somewhat more attention than the unwatched ones I've been sandbox rewriting, so I'm leaving a talk page note for transparency, so people who pay attention to the article can see what I'm doing before it goes into mainspace, and to allow people to raise any concerns they have as I go along. I'm currently rewriting this article at User:Vaticidalprophet/Trisomy X, as I previously did with tetrasomy X (now a GA undergoing pre-FAC peer review) and pentasomy X (now finishing up GAN). I'd estimate at the time of this message I'm about one-eighth through one-tenth of the way through. I prefer to work in sandboxes because my style for radical rewrites is too messy (leaving stuff half-finished for extended periods, linking stuff to refer to later, etc) to be mainspace-friendly. Feel free to take a look. Vaticidalprophet 23:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the mainspace version now. Vaticidalprophet 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Desertarun (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Reviewed: Did you know nominations/WHIS
  • Comment: As with Did you know nominations/Pentasomy X, this is a messy page history to evaluate, as it was rewritten in userspace and merged into the pre-existing mainspace article. The last pre-expansion diff is here, at 4946 B/809 words readable prose size. The expansion at the time of hitting mainspace is here, at 29 kB/4513 words readable prose size.

5x expanded by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Copyvio report shows that violation is unlikely. This is my first DYK review so please feel free to give it another look! Salukk (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Trisomy X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Vaticidalprophet, I will review this article. I'll leave some in-depth comments later. It is quite a long article so I will note it may take a while to review this. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

[edit]

General:

  • 85-90, 5-10%, 80-90%, etc. - Per MOS:PERCENT, the percent symbol is fine. However, if it's a number range it should be an endash rather than a hyphen. I would recommend going through and changing instances of hyphens in number ranges, such as those I just listed, to endashes.
  • Check that the English variant is consistent. I see both "criticised" and "dehumanizing".
  • Similarly, consistent quotes. I see 'superfemale' (single quote) and illegitimate product of a Graeco-Roman alliance" (double quote). Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • no symptoms significant enough to inspire formal testing. - Is "inspire" the best word for this context? I think "require" or a synonym would work better.
    • I don't think 'require' is accurate. It's very hit-or-miss whether women with trisomy X, even symptomatic cases, get karyotyped, so a phrasing that implies "this definitely happens when X or Y symptom is there" would give a false impression that it's a routine procedure. Vaticidalprophet 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • increased height, with an average height around 172 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in) - This may work better as a single clause like "increased average height of around 172 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in)" or something like that, but this is optional.
  • Most women with trisomy X go on to live normal lives - "go on to" is probably unnecessary here, but "live...lives" can be seen as repetitive. I suggest "Most women with trisomy X have normal lives" or something similar.
  • cohort studies on children with sex chromosome aneuploidies which followed them into adulthood found that people with these disorders are often mildly affected - This seems like a long clause without a comma. I would rephrase this a bit, but I don't have specific suggestions at the moment.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation:

  • 40% of girls with trisomy X aged six to thirteen are above the 90th percentile in height. - Regardless of MOS:PERCENT, I think it is a bit strange to begin a sentence with a number.
  • slightly below one standard deviation above - Also, "below...above" is unusual, I would say something like "almost one standard deviation above..."
  • These differences are usually minor, and do not have an impact on the daily lives of girls and women with the condition. - I'd suggest getting rid of the comma.
  • Precocious puberty has been reported,[6][23] but is not considered a characteristic of the syndrome.[3] - Likewise here.
  • and some patients followed in the medical literature - Followed as in studied over a long period of time?
  • with 40% to 90% in different studies requiring it. - Does this mean, in the different groups studied?
  • The psychological portrait of trisomy X is not entirely clear, and appears to be complicated by a more severe phenotype in postnatally than prenatally diagnosed groups - The comma here could probably also be removed.
  • but by their mid-thirties having stronger interpersonal bonds and healthy relationships - Should "having" be changed to a subject-verb, like "they had"?
  • Schizophrenia in trisomy X may be associated with intellectual disability - If I am assuming correctly, there is no conclusive evidence of such?
  • For instance, psychogenic stomach pains - Psychogenic is a disambiguation page.
    • Disambiguated appropriately. On the comma notes: I think this is personal style. I trend towards a slightly comma-heavy sentence structure, and I don't think any of those trend into grammatical inaccuracy. Vaticidalprophet 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mosaicism, where both 47,XXX and other cell lines are present occurs in approximately 10% of cases. - Should there be a comma between "present" and "occurs"?
  • Cognitive development is more typical, and long-term outcomes improved - On the contrary, I do not think this comma is necessary, as "long-term outcomes improved" isn't a complete sentence.
  • little-understood - I also think there shouldn't be a hyphen here, since "little understood" isn't an adjective here but rather an adverb and verb.

Causes:

  • Mosaic is a duplicate link.
    • This is an intentional duplink -- it's in contravention of what the MOS currently says, but I strongly suspect it's what the MOS will say in two years. Most (~60%) readers are on mobile. Readers don't generally read articles as one block, even though writers often assume they do. Because mobile readers have all sections collapsed by default, their patterns are even more jumpy/spread-out. For a concept like genetic mosaicism that's unfamiliar to most of the general population, there should (IMO) be links available anywhere a reader might reasonably be expected to begin reading the article from, like the beginning of a section. Mobile readers can't just scroll up conveniently to a link in another section that'd be nearby for a desktop reader, so an article written to be navigatable/useful to the majority of Wikipedia's audience needs to treat sections as fairly self-contained, including in links. Vaticidalprophet 01:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trisomy X is a random event; it is not caused by lifestyle factors or parental fault - I think this sentence can be combined without using a semicolon, e.g. "Trisomy X occurs randomly and is not caused by lifestyle factors or parental fault".
  • trisomy X occurs randomly and has nothing to do with the chromosomes of the parents, and little chance of recurring in the family. - But in a minority, it isn't a random occurrence? Also, the comma after "chromosomes of the parents" may be unnecessary.

Diagnosis and differential diagnosis:

  • Nothing of concern here.

Prognosis:

Epidemiology:

  • Trisomy X only occurs in females, as the Y chromosome is in most cases necessary for male sexual development - Seems strange to have this paragraph be its own sentence at the end. Actually, for those of us who are not good at biology (not me, but other people), I think it is worth considering mentioning this earlier on. Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, this bit is a bit of a WIP and an "improve between GAN and FAC" thing -- that is, when transforming the coverage from 'broad' to 'comprehensive'. There's a bit more to write in this section to get it really sparkling, but it's still a good overview of the topic. This sentence is currently set off as its own section, but I plan to expand the topic in a way that gets it reading a bit more naturally -- it's just that, at the current level of resolution, this is taking a backseat to other issues and making sure the core of the article is fully fleshed out. Vaticidalprophet 01:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely. I am only conducting a GA review here, not an FA review, so the standard is a bit lower. I was just pointing out that, even in good articles, it is a bit weird to see standalone sentences (but not by any means disallowed). Epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History:

  • even at the time - "Even" may not be necessary here.
  • have since been criticized - Within how many decades did these come to be viewed as dehumanizing?
  • until the death of one of the researchers - same for both cohorts?
  • due to the then-present perception that XYY syndrome was associated with violent criminality - this could probably be recast in active voice, e.g. "because [the public] perceived that XYY syndrome was associated with violent criminality" or something like that, but it's optional. It just read a bit clunkily to me.
  • condition's discoverer Patricia Jacobs - I feel like this can be mentioned earlier in the section.
  • professor of pediatrics - how about "pediatrics professor"?
  • around one-fifth of patients at the clinic have trisomy X - Is this when it was founded, or currently? Or is the clinic intending to seek patients for which one-fifth have trisomy X?

Society and culture:

  • Awareness of these conditions is accentuating - Is "accentuating" the right word?
  • in the late 2010s, state governments across the United States declared May to be National X & Y Chromosome Variation Awareness Month. - Kind of unrelated, but some or all?
  • Campaigns led by parents and caregivers of children with sex chromosome aneuploidies to raise awareness and increase available support made significant strides over the course of the 2010s to increase awareness,[82] decrease stigma, and improve the state of research.[85] - The portion of the sentence before the first comma is a little confusing because of the lack of punctuation. I get what this is saying: "The parents and caregivers of children with sex chromosome aneuploidies have created campaigns to raise awareness and increase available support. These campaigns made significant strides over the course of the 2010s to increase awareness, decrease stigma, and improve the state of research." Maybe a wording like this would be better.

In other animals:

  • Six cases of trisomy X have been recorded in dogs, for which the karyotype is 79,XXX compared to 78,XX for an euploid female dog.[87] Unlike in humans, trisomy X in dogs is strongly linked to infertility, either primary anestrus or infertility with an otherwise normal estrous cycle. - if only six cases have been recorded, wouldn't the characterization of "strongly linked" suffer from small sample bias? Especially since these six cases may have been severe enough to be recorded, and that these cases resulted in infertility. However, I understand this may be what the source said.
    • As far as I can get from the sources, they're assumed fully connected. (So far as I can tell, in all nonhuman species where it's been observed trisomy X is always associated with infertility, although this is slightly too OR to say in wikivoice; the thing you pointed out with the other clause here will hopefully make it a bit clearer.) Vaticidalprophet 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to domesticated cattle, trisomy X has been observed in river buffalo. - Any effects of this? Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

This is a medical article so I will check whether the sources largely follow the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • 'Karyotype' as a term has multiple meanings, all of which are used here. It may refer to a person's chromosome complement, to the test used to discern said chromosome complement, or to an image of chromosomes ascertained via such a test - this is fine, but I would basically clarify whenever you are referring to a test (I would assume the images and the complement themselves are unlikely to be confused).

References:

[edit]
  • All images are licensed properly (though they don't contain alt text, which is optional for the purposes of the criteria). Image captions are appropriate.
  • Looking through Earwig's copyvio detector, I can't immediately find any.

General comments

[edit]

Infobox photo caption

[edit]

We propose that we write Two girls and a young woman with trisomy X, because this is a formal context, and we consider it pejorative to be calling a mature adult a "girl" here. Elizium23 (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I also thought the phrasing of the caption was a little off Dracophyllum 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily mind that compromise, though I think it a little clunky. It's better than 'females'. Vaticidalprophet 05:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Female/girl/woman" wording

[edit]

Pinging Elizium23 and Sandstein. Every possible rendition of "female", "girl", and "women" in different parts of the lead has been litigated quite extensively since the period the article's been brought to FAC, and I suspect it needs fuller discussion than the current pattern of undiscussed changes. The prior discussion on the infobox caption led to the conclusion "girls and women" was an acceptable wording, although no one's changed it to that yet. The alt text is still "females", which I think is pretty clunky and should be standardized to the caption. IMO, "female" is the correct phrasing for the first sentence of the lead, even though it's inappropriate for the caption/alt text (IMO, "female" > "females"). This is a medical article, and it's standard practice for disorders that affect one sex to refer to patients as "male" or "female" (rather than "men" or "women") in at least the very opening when the condition is a congenital one that affects patients over the entire lifespan, and so the adult implications of "man/woman" are inappropriate. See e.g. Turner syndrome, Tetrasomy X, Pentasomy X. I think at any rate these disputes at least need to be resolved, though. Vaticidalprophet 16:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, thanks for the ping. I'm a layperson, but I find "a female" to be insulting and objectifying, whereas "a female patient", where "female" is an adjective rather than a noun, to be perfectly normal. The age issue can be circumvented by writing "girls or women", as is occasionally done elsewhere in the article. I'm ready to convinced otherwise though if this is standard for medical articles; do we have a MOS on this? Sandstein 17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDMOS covers medical matters broadly. It doesn't mention this specific matter, which is more de facto practice than de jure MOS-holy-writ (inasmuch as the MOS is... etc, etc), but it does disavow the "female patient" wording you propose -- "patients/cases" language is cautioned against where possible. I find the consistency between similar articles persuasive; in addition to the use in Turner's/tetra/penta X, the equivalent wording of "where a male has" is seen in Klinefelter syndrome, XYY syndrome, and related disorders. I do think it's a wording that shouldn't be overused, because it's certainly a clinical one, but medical articles can handle a degree of clinical wording. Vaticidalprophet 17:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declinicalize?

[edit]

Hey Ajpolino hey I keep noticing you “declinicalizing” the text can you explain further in depth why?CycoMa (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CycoMa:, yes of course. The article is currently being weighed against the featured article criteria at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Trisomy_X. One of the reviewers there expressed concern that the article "seems to be written for clinicians..." and that the "prose needs some polishing." So I'm giving it another readthrough and attempting to (1) make it a bit more accessible to those without backgrounds in medicine (e.g. reducing the use of words like "phenotype", "presentation", referring to people as "cases", et al.), and (2) spruce up the prose a bit by trimming extraneous words and hopefully improving flow (e.g. removing repeated sentences, trimming filler words that don't contribute to sentences' meaning)... maybe "de-clinicalize" was not the best made-up word for the edit summary...
Two reviewers had concerns about some of the rarer sources in the article as well, so once I finish the prose cleanup, I'll loop back to take a look at their concerns there. Sadly, Vaticidalprophet, who did much of the heavy lifting updating this article, has marked "semi-retired" on his userpage, so I fear he may not have time to address reviewers' concerns.
If you have specific questions, concerns, et al. I'm happy to chat about it. Also you're welcome to participate in the WP:FAC process at the page I linked above. There are some instructions at the top of this page if you haven't participated before (I know I've seen your username around, but I can't remember where. So no offense meant if you're already well-versed in the process). Thanks for checking in! I hope all is well on your end. Happy to hear your thoughts. Ajpolino (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it actually a problem for a primarily medical article to sound a bit... medical? Seems to come with the turf to an extent. I can probably understand where it's just alterations in language, but changes like e.g. "a karyotype test"-->"testing" IMO seem to harm the actual specificity/accuracy of the text. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, but it's not a binary question of whether the article sounds medical. Rather it's a question of degree. As to any specific change, I claim no exquisite mastery of English prose, I'm just trying to make this article clear. If you have questions about a change I'm happy to discuss my thinking. If you feel it's not an improvement you can just change it back with an edit summary to that effect. I won't be offended. Ajpolino (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On closer look the changes mostly seem fine, I think my view of them was a bit soured by that one example. I've reverted that but left the rest of it as is. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A closer look at primary sources used here

[edit]

Hi all, per some comments at the current FAC, I'm taking a closer look at the use of primary sources in the article. The goal is to make this article as reliable as possible by using the highest quality, most recent sources we can. I've trimmed a few unneeded primary sources already, and may end up trimming a few more as I go through, but the less straightforward ones I'll post here as a reminder to myself to return to, and as an invitation for anyone else to share thoughts. Pardon the big blob of text. I'll add to it as I have time:

  • Wigby, et al. 2016 (current #4) - for the conclusion that folks diagnosed prenatally with trisomy X tend to have better outcomes than those diagnosed postnatally (which is the conclusion of this primary study of ~75 women). This could be cited to the review Tartaglia, et al. 2010 instead. Turns back the clock (less reliable) but defers to a review (more reliable).
  • Lähdesmäki and Alvesalo, 2010 (#9) supports Dental abnormalities are associated with sex chromosome aneuploidy, including trisomy X; taurodontism, increased enamel thickness, and increased root length have been connected to the condition.. The beefy reviews that would cover this are from 2009 and 2010, so they don't mention it. The Unique report (which I think was updated in 2021?) says only "Research into dental development in girls with triple X syndrome is sparse. A Unique study day found that 14/20 families said their daughter had some sort of dental problem. Problems described include poor enamel formation, pitting and need for fluoride coating." So they do not seem to take up this study. Can't find mentioned anywhere else (though apparently it is a feature of pentasomy X) so let's cut for now.
  • Tartaglia, et al. 2015 (#11) is used four times: twice to say that a given symptom is common to various aneuploidies (based on table 2 of their intro), once to reference the founding of the clinic described, and once for Awareness and diagnosis of sex chromosome aneuploidies is increasing,. Not to pick nits on that last bit, but the reference notes that diagnoses are increasing but doesn't mention awareness. Does one imply the other? Kind of... Replaced that last use with a textbook chapter. Ajpolino (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liu, et al. 2016 (#12) is used twice. Once for One study found that the autoimmune disorders lupus and Sjögren’s syndrome are more common in trisomy X than in the general population., the other for prevalences of those two autoimmune disorders in folks with trisomy X.
  • Linden et al 1995 (#13) review and case study used twice for Although heart defects are common in some more severe X-chromosome polysomy (multiple chromosomes) conditions, and is one of three refs for Like trisomy X, tetrasomy X has a variable phenotype muddled by underdiagnosis. The tetrasomy is generally more severe than the trisomy; intellectual disability is characteristic, dysmorphic features more visible, and puberty often altered.. Seems these could likely be replaced. I'll note the book chapter Jones et al, 2013 (#6) describes heart defects in pentasomy X but not tetrasomy or trisomy. Replaced both uses.
  • Tuke, et al. 2019 (#14) - used four times. Twice in context (a large population study found... and Amongst the 244,000 women in the UK Biobank research sample...), once to reference the average age of menopause, and once for reduced household income.
  • Otter, et al. 2021 (#24) supports Though much of the research is in children, research in adult women with trisomy X suggests higher rates of autistic symptomatology than the general population. which is the conclusion of the cited study.

Will add to this as I go but feel free to add thoughts however you find convenient. Ajpolino (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to speak my mind over the next few days. On reference #4 i prefer Wigby over the review. I don't like how the review refers back to a study on mosaicisms when making this point. Even if we disregard the results of Wigby, its assesment of preexisting evidence in the introduction seems more solid. Dr Bowser (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On (#9): so they partly contradict each other then? I'm not sure whether to keep or exclude, but maybe it's best to be very vague on the specifics when it comes to dental issues in trisomy X pending further evidence. Dr Bowser (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done cut for now. Updated (and hopefully didn't mess up) the other numbering. Ajpolino (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(#11):I'm undecided. (#12) If we keep this, doesn't it make more sense to present the relative risk, rather than the prevalence of Trisomy X in "SLE/SS women"? Dr Bowser (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(#12) Actually, since the numbers are uncertain, maybe we should do away with them altogether and only mention that these autoimmune disorders are more common?
(#14) I'm impressed with the size of this study. How unfortunate that we don't have any recent reviews mentioning it. If we are allowed to keep it I suppose context should be added to the remaining two mentions, since this is most likely a subpopulation as described after Amongst the 244,000 women in the UK Biobank research sample... Dr Bowser (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part two!

  • Lim, et al. 2017 (#29) a case report and review, though an estimate from it's review section is all it's cited for.
  • Tang, et al. 2019 (#30) a case report and systematic review. Cited three times based on the latter.
  • Sybert 2002 (#31) a somewhat unusual multi-case-report + review. Used to cite average IQ in women with Turner syndrome/Trisomy X mosaic.
  • Blair, et al. 2001 (#32) study of seven girls with mosaic Turner's/Trisomy X. Cite for Women with mosaic Turner syndrome tend to have similar dysmorphic features to those with non-mosaic Turner's syndrome, but less marked, and some have none of the traditional Turner's stigmata.
  • Attfield 2020 (#43) used to cite Parents report their daughters' struggling both academically and socially at school and later Descriptions of trisomy X overwhelmingly consider the karyotype from a medical perspective, rather than a sociological or educational one. The second bit is based on the author's substantial introductory review. The first based on the actual study (interviews of 12 sets of parents).
  • Berglund, et al. 2019 (#47) is explicitly called out as a large Danish study in both uses.
  • Stockholm, et al. 2010 (#48) same idea. Explicitly notes that it's a study of the Danish cohort.
  • Barr, et al. 1969 (#53) is used to backup Early studies on sex chromosome aneuploidy screened patients residing in institutions, giving an image of the karyotypes as incapacitating; even at the time, this research was criticized for giving an inaccurate portrait of sex chromosome aneuploidy.. It's a case report and review, and presumably it criticizes contemporary studies. Do we fill that's strong enough for this sentence?
  • Attfield 2021 (#54) Ditto the above. Cites Early reports of women with trisomy X have since been criticized for a dehumanizing ableist perspective, showing nude photographs of institutionalized women described as "mental deficiency patients". Presumably this (interviews with 10 women + author's review) provides that criticism?
  • Gruchy, et al. 2016 (#66) Large retrospective French study. Supporting Abortion rates in sex chromosome aneuploidies have decreased over time with improved counselling..

Query

[edit]

Ref 17 ([4]) is used to support "some women with trisomy X [...] have acquired advanced degrees or worked in cognitive fields". Unless I'm missing something, I don't see where the last part of this sentence is supported by the source. The only mention of occupational history in women with trisomy X is Sixteen females were followed into adulthood in the Edinburgh cohort and were described as gaining employment in non-academic occupations such as hairdressing or waitressing, with four being housewives. Is this information in some other source? Spicy (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, weird. The previous source (#19, Kliegman and St. Geme textbook chapter) gets at a similar idea with There is marked variability within the syndrome, and a small proportion of affected females are well coordinated, socially outgoing, and academically superior but that doesn't quite support what's in the article. I rejiggered the wording to something supported by the textbook chapter. If I find where the "advanced degrees" bit came from, I'll add it back. Ajpolino (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trisomy_X&oldid=1207037359"