User talk:LioArthur

Welcome!

Hello, LioArthur, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zefr (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Pomegranate. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please be more careful about adding primary content and sources to the several articles on ellagitannins and urolithin. Please read WP:MEDRS for any content and sources addressing human health. Do not add your own interpretations per WP:OR or those from news articles per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, pay attention to reference formatting per WP:CITE. Zefr (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Walnut, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop populating the encyclopedia with primary and original content and sources! Take a break, and review the guidelines I offered. Zefr (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on your article content and sources

LioArthur. Thanks for the note. My main point is that you used lab research as fact; this is called primary research and is not useful in an encyclopedia for statements about human health. As you are new and want to contribute, I applaud you and recommend your review of the general medical guideline, WP:MEDRS which emphasizes sources should be systematic reviews or a meta-analysis of high-quality, large, randomized clinical trials. Particularly, see the pyramids at this section where lab studies are the lowest-quality evidence. There were other examples of WP:OR, but this one from here serves as an example of over-interpretation: "This seems to explain an important individual variability of the observed benefits of pomegranate extracts or other ellagitannins dietary sources." Your interests and professional experience can be very valuable to WP. I hope you don't feel discouraged, as there's a bit of a learning curve, but MEDRS will convince you that when we publish human health content - even findings from basic research - the strongest non-primary sources are needed. We can talk further here; I'm willing to help. You can also join and follow the thinking at WT:MED. --Zefr (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urolithin A

Hello LioArthur. You wrote: Dear Zefr, thank you for your nice feedback and proposal for help. I have diligently read the information you sent me and will work again on the urolithin A page, taking extra care to avoid novel synthesis and to include human trials as main sources. I have two questions related to your intervention which might help me understand better what to do, and even more importantly what not to do:

- You deleted the "memory" part, which was precisely based on a source quoting human trials. While this source did not provide with the strongest evidence I can imagine, it seems to fulfill Wikipedia requirements as I understand them. I would not mind dropping this part altogether, as I personally don't think the provided evidence is very strong. But I don't think that my personal judgment should interfere (after all, this human trial has been peer-reviewed). What would be your thoughts about it? - You kept the lifespan part where it is about animal trials involving C. elegans. I understand that by changing section title from "health effect" to "research" you somewhat broaden the possible acceptation of sources. Am I right? And if I am, should I keep a space for animal trials in this section?

Thank you in advance for your feedback! Beyond my initial frustration, I totally understand how strenuous your tasks should be and am grateful that people are willing to endorse such important roles. LioArthur (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on memory here cited an article from the journal, EBCAM, which is a low-quality source, one that most WP editors for medicine ignore because the quality of research in that journal is comprehensively poor. It was one small study involving only 15 subjects in the treatment group and weak control of variables, not least of which the relationship of the blood parameters measured to memory is totally circumstantial, with no basis for understanding mechanisms. Any editor could be equally severe with the remaining Research sections on lifespan, cancer, and antimicrobial effects - they are all weak, but point out to the user that mechanistic research is ongoing, a minimal position for the article. Some pharmacology articles allow discussion of in vitro and lab animal results, which for urolithin A, may be sufficient to use as we do now, but I recommend we not add early-stage lab research to what is already a low-quality section. --Zefr (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of research on rats is not encyclopedic per WP:PRIMARY. Early-stage human rsearch is ok, but all the animal studies and different disease models can be condensed to a single sentence, e.g., "Laboratory research on the potential roles of urolithin A includes models of lifespan, inflammation, muscle function, and cancer."<refs> The content on antimicrobial effects is easier to define in vitro and may have direct basis for drug development. Having subheads for each of the areas where rat studies exist may lead the non-science WP user to believe these are actually established and may apply to humans. Not the case of course, so we should de-emphasize them. --Zefr (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can respond here on your Talk page (I'm following) or at Talk:Urolithin A where I moved the discussion to involve others. I think the Nature Medicine article is too preliminary to discuss as fact, but rather is evidence that research is underway, albeit very early-stage and far from human studies.--Zefr (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]