Template talk:Endocrine pathology
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism
[edit]I think Pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism should also be included in this template. Please suggest or incorporate in the right place.DiptanshuTalk 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
this template needs to go
[edit]I will remove this from endocrine articles that I edit. It is way too large, but it also is arbitrary, uses some obsolete terms & concepts, and redundant (some conditions listed under two names). Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of endocrine conditions not described on this template that are at least as important as those here. If anyone really wants to keep it, I will keep adding more endocrine diagnoses until this template is bigger than any article it's hanging on, even though it would be an example of wp:disrupt.
Examples of missing topics from just the first 3 lines that are as important as those listed: mitochondrial diabetes, insulin mutation, CF-related diabetes, steroid diabetes, neonatal diabetes, MODY 6,7 &8, MODY due to KCNJ11 mutations, MODY due to ABCC8 mutations, LADA, post-pancreatectomy diabetes, experimental diabetes, congenital lipodystrophy, hyperosmolar coma, diabetic hyperlipidemia, Mauriac syndrome, diabetic hypoglycemia... Honest, I could do this for every line and make a 46K template.
I don't desire to hurt anyone's feelings or dismiss their efforts. I generally prefer to add content than argue about categories and structure, so I am not familiar with all the options for this. Can't we just categorize all the endocrine articles as category:endocrinology and have them point to a template like this that can be made more complete? I even promise to help contribute missing topics if someone wants to do it. alteripse (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Please get support at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for your plan to wp:disrupt before implementing it. I'm disappointed that you would so casually abdicate your rights under AGF, but since you have, I will be reverting your additions to this template. Since you are just back a 15 month break, I remind you that unambiguous premeditated disruption is a desysopable offense. --Arcadian (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Relax. I just wanted to get a conversation started with anyone paying attention to endocrinology. In fact, if I start adding diseases to the template, why would anyone else consider it disruptive? The more the merrier, right? So why THESE particular diseases and not a hundred others? And what if we add the hundred others? Is there a size that you would finally agree is too big for this purpose? Nice to see you are still around and providing structure to the operation. alteripse (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Arcadian, since I do respect your expertise about classificatory and structural matters, can you think of a way we could shrink this box without losing the purpose and helpfulness by using it as a pointer to a more complete endocrine directory? I am imagining something about 20% of this size that invites the reader to go check a directory that shows how this article fits into the vast schema of all things glandular. alteripse (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad to de-escalate, and I think will have large areas of agreement. For example, all of ICD-10 Chapter E used to be in Template:Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic pathology, but if you look here, you can see how it has been split up to make each template more manageable. There are a number of possible solutions: we could use the collapsible section technique used at Template:Sex hormones, splitting out details as done at Template:Seizures and epilepsy, or simply defaulting the template display to collapsed. However, there are negative consequences to each of these choices (though some of the consequences can be very subtle), so care is indicated. Could you provide an example in your workspace of what you had in mind? Also, could you tell me the screen size(s) you're using to test? --Arcadian (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- What I have been trying to do since returning is to improve a few of my "major contributions", primarily by adding references. These quickly push the article size toward the upper limits. This is what got my attention to the huge box. I don't even want to try to edit the box because I will probably screw it up. In addition to the size, it was the arbitrary incompleteness that caught my eye, like a box entitled List of States, with 32 states, 1 territory, 2 provinces, and the Gadsden Purchase and New South Wales listed: enough to annoy my OCD into thinking of everything that was missing. You can find another unincluded 20 conditions just by looking at the list of articles I claim on my user page. So what I have in mind is a box that is no more than an inch high (maybe 8-12 lines), mentioning it is an endocrinology article of a certain subset, and basically pointing to an article that is a more completely categorized listing that shows where this article fits in to a more complete outline listing of endocrine disorders. As a second choice, I would also be happy with a smaller box that gave only a few general categories of endocrine disorder, or third choice, an inch-high box that expanded if the reader clicked on it to expand it. I am not sure what you mean by screen size: generally large laptop or medium desktop screen with about 40 lines visible at a time. Besides size, the other problem with the box is that it seems frozen in time about the time I went to medical school-- probably before you were born,-- with only a couple of the thousands of new diseases, hormones, and disorders discovered in the last 25 years. Virtually every issue of JCEM has at least one new disease comparable in frequency or distinctiveness to several that are listed. If it was derived from the ICD-9, that would explain it, since the ICD9 was apparently written in 1968 by 70 year old surgeons completely ignorant of any endocrinology they couldn't take out-- all growth problems are simply 783.3; all disorders of early or late puberty or sex hormone effects are simply 259.0 or 259.1, there is not even a code for all the varieties of hyperinsulinism (we have hijacked the insulin resistance code for clinic use). I notice you are now a medical student-- congratulations, I think. Surely they are teaching you something more up to date than this? alteripse (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is primarily organized around ICD10 E00-35 and ICD9 240-259, and crosschecked against standard texts (Robbins, Harrison's, etc.) for validation. I agree that there are many new terms for medical conditions that people attempt to introduce, and that we should be judicious as to which we include in navboxes. I think we should be very cautious about including terms that have no ICD code, though I don't have a problem with terms that have an OMIM code, as long as they can be precisely grouped with a term that does have an ICD code (as is the case with the MODYs). Could you put together an example of what you had in mind? --Arcadian (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are many possible taxonomies of disease. Many are formulated for specific purposes, such as public health surveillance, insurance billing, resource allocation, or medical teaching. The latter would seem the most appropriate for an encyclopedia, but there is more than one way to organize even that. We are currently trying to figure out how to adapt a new but widely used electronic medical record with pre-programmed ICD codes to actual clinical usefulness. We are trying to come up with the criteria and rules for the individual disorders lumped together by ICD code. For WP I guess I would prefer a system based taxonomy much as you have at the higher levels, but just sticking with your first category it seems peculiar to have several forms of MODY listed separately, but not the corresponding forms of hyperinsulinism, which are simply gain of function mutations instead of loss of function mutations of many of the same genes, or CF-related diabetes, which is neither type 1 nor type 2 but more common than all the MODYs combined. I don't have a huge interest in taxonomy: I want two things from a system like this: that it have a place to put all encyclopedically distinct disorders regardless of whether some surgeon or bureaucrat understands the distinction, and that it not add another thousand characters and 8 inches to each article. The current box fails both ways but I am happy to leave the details to you and will be grateful if you can devise something. alteripse (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could you provide a list of links to articles that you think should be added? (Or, if they're articles that don't exist, could you provide the OMIM?) --Arcadian (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are many possible taxonomies of disease. Many are formulated for specific purposes, such as public health surveillance, insurance billing, resource allocation, or medical teaching. The latter would seem the most appropriate for an encyclopedia, but there is more than one way to organize even that. We are currently trying to figure out how to adapt a new but widely used electronic medical record with pre-programmed ICD codes to actual clinical usefulness. We are trying to come up with the criteria and rules for the individual disorders lumped together by ICD code. For WP I guess I would prefer a system based taxonomy much as you have at the higher levels, but just sticking with your first category it seems peculiar to have several forms of MODY listed separately, but not the corresponding forms of hyperinsulinism, which are simply gain of function mutations instead of loss of function mutations of many of the same genes, or CF-related diabetes, which is neither type 1 nor type 2 but more common than all the MODYs combined. I don't have a huge interest in taxonomy: I want two things from a system like this: that it have a place to put all encyclopedically distinct disorders regardless of whether some surgeon or bureaucrat understands the distinction, and that it not add another thousand characters and 8 inches to each article. The current box fails both ways but I am happy to leave the details to you and will be grateful if you can devise something. alteripse (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is primarily organized around ICD10 E00-35 and ICD9 240-259, and crosschecked against standard texts (Robbins, Harrison's, etc.) for validation. I agree that there are many new terms for medical conditions that people attempt to introduce, and that we should be judicious as to which we include in navboxes. I think we should be very cautious about including terms that have no ICD code, though I don't have a problem with terms that have an OMIM code, as long as they can be precisely grouped with a term that does have an ICD code (as is the case with the MODYs). Could you put together an example of what you had in mind? --Arcadian (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- What I have been trying to do since returning is to improve a few of my "major contributions", primarily by adding references. These quickly push the article size toward the upper limits. This is what got my attention to the huge box. I don't even want to try to edit the box because I will probably screw it up. In addition to the size, it was the arbitrary incompleteness that caught my eye, like a box entitled List of States, with 32 states, 1 territory, 2 provinces, and the Gadsden Purchase and New South Wales listed: enough to annoy my OCD into thinking of everything that was missing. You can find another unincluded 20 conditions just by looking at the list of articles I claim on my user page. So what I have in mind is a box that is no more than an inch high (maybe 8-12 lines), mentioning it is an endocrinology article of a certain subset, and basically pointing to an article that is a more completely categorized listing that shows where this article fits in to a more complete outline listing of endocrine disorders. As a second choice, I would also be happy with a smaller box that gave only a few general categories of endocrine disorder, or third choice, an inch-high box that expanded if the reader clicked on it to expand it. I am not sure what you mean by screen size: generally large laptop or medium desktop screen with about 40 lines visible at a time. Besides size, the other problem with the box is that it seems frozen in time about the time I went to medical school-- probably before you were born,-- with only a couple of the thousands of new diseases, hormones, and disorders discovered in the last 25 years. Virtually every issue of JCEM has at least one new disease comparable in frequency or distinctiveness to several that are listed. If it was derived from the ICD-9, that would explain it, since the ICD9 was apparently written in 1968 by 70 year old surgeons completely ignorant of any endocrinology they couldn't take out-- all growth problems are simply 783.3; all disorders of early or late puberty or sex hormone effects are simply 259.0 or 259.1, there is not even a code for all the varieties of hyperinsulinism (we have hijacked the insulin resistance code for clinic use). I notice you are now a medical student-- congratulations, I think. Surely they are teaching you something more up to date than this? alteripse (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad to de-escalate, and I think will have large areas of agreement. For example, all of ICD-10 Chapter E used to be in Template:Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic pathology, but if you look here, you can see how it has been split up to make each template more manageable. There are a number of possible solutions: we could use the collapsible section technique used at Template:Sex hormones, splitting out details as done at Template:Seizures and epilepsy, or simply defaulting the template display to collapsed. However, there are negative consequences to each of these choices (though some of the consequences can be very subtle), so care is indicated. Could you provide an example in your workspace of what you had in mind? Also, could you tell me the screen size(s) you're using to test? --Arcadian (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Look at the congenital hyperinsulinism article for a listing of several that are of similar importance but greater frequency than the MODY mutations. Look at the articles listed on my user page and on my watch list. I mentioned some others above. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time or inclination to go through OMIM to find you lists of gene defects that cause endocrinopathies-- there are thousands of them. Look at any current endocrine journal or detailed pediatric endocrine textbook or the Journal of Inherited Disease and you will see how much of a full time job that would be. That's why I would rather see a much briefer box on the articles pointing to an easily edited article list that can be as compulsively complete as anyone wants to make it, and to which anyone can add as we wish: I wouldn't dare try to add a disease to the template as it is now constructed for fear of completely screwing it up. Surely the uber-taxonomist in you is bothered that the arbitrary inclusion of 30 twigs in the oversized template implies there is not a forest of a thousand more outside the template box? Since you like codes and categories and I like writing text, here's a proposition: (1) you pare the box down to 10 major endocrinopathy categories linked to an easily edited list of endocrinopathies, and (2) I will promise to add 50 new diseases to the list by the end of the year, and at least one a week thereafter as long as I am active here, so that (3) you can track down codes to your heart's content! Please, it's a great deal! alteripse (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Counterproposal: could we revisit this after you've been back for three months? MEDMOS was brand new when you left, but it's a well accepted part of the culture now, and it changes the landscape. There are some issues with your proposals, but it would be so much easier for us to discuss them after you were an active editor again. Or if that is not acceptable, could we discuss this at WP:MED instead of here? --Arcadian (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Could we collapse this template?
[edit]Could we set this template to start out collapsed (state = collapsed)? Currently state isn't set, so it defaults to autocollapse, which is not so good when it's the only navbox; it's pretty big. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- This navbox is now initially displayed collapsed. If you change it back, please say why. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)