Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 124

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126→Archive 130

Pizza

RfC on Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Pizza_image. QuackGuru (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Quack, two months ago, in closing a different RFC that also discussed this same image, User:Sunrise told you not to start RFCs on that page when you could just have a plain old discussion. And today, you opened two new RFCs on that page. Please don't do that. Please actually try to talk to the editors watching that page before starting an RFC. If a normal discussion can solve it, then you will waste less of everyone else's time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing article: Gee's Linctus

Gee's Linctus is mentioned in two articles: Laudanum and Over-the-counter drug. Laudanum says, '"Gee's Linctus" is also available from most UK pharmacies, especially the Independent stores'. Over-the-counter drug says, 'Frequently, customers buying larger-than-usual doses of [P] medicines (such as DXM, promethazine, codeine or Gee's linctus) will be queried, due to the possibility of abuse'. I don't think either statement is true.

WP:OR. I first remember Gee's Linctus from the mid 1950s, when I may have been 6 or 7. I lost my voice. My best friend's mother, who was a pharmacist, gave me a teaspoonful, and it came back as if by magic. I feel pretty sure that it was available OTC as a cough remedy and expectorant into the 1960s. It then became restricted: I recall in the late 1960s or early 1970s being accosted outside a chemist's shop by a bedraggled young woman who asked me to buy a bottle for her (she had the money; I declined). I'm not sure if it's available nowadays even on prescription, or even if it's still in the British Pharmacopoeia.

I think it contained tincture of opium. You can see the problem.

I know nothing about Dr Gee or his formulation. It may have been a UK variant of paregoric. This might be an interesting research project for someone. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not in BNF, but I did find a BMJ paper from 1959 stating it contained 0.65mg anhydrous morphine.[1] Rxlist.com lists paregoric as a alternative name, although the dose and formulation looks different to that listed in the BMJ source. Little pob (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I've just talked to a pharmacist at my local Boots, who confirmed that it is no longer available and hasn't been for years. Narky Blert (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be the official label. It looks like it went prescription-only before disappearing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Blimey, I remember as a child (in the '70s) whenever I had a cough my mother would say it was time for the Gee's Linctus and dose me good & proper. And speaking to Mrs Alexbrn just now, she confirms at boarding school (also in the '70s) it would be liberally administered by Matron. It wasn't very nice. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
It is one of the 1000s of cough medicines. Will redirect there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Statin denialism

Some eyes needed at Talk:Statin#"Statin Denialism". I think this issue can be presented in an NPOV & WEIGHT kind of way, but I don't think we're getting it right yet. JFW | T@lk 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Cripes. For a high-profile article, this is surprisingly crappy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo), yes very valuable to the wikiprojects, thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Doctor who?

I'm not sure if MOS / MEDMOS, etc has anything to say about usage of (doctor) as a dab term for a BLP. It seems to me that such usage makes an implicit claim to notability as a medical practitioner, with the potential to mislead the general public: cf Talk:David Bull (doctor) (TV doctor and politician).

86.190.132.158 (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that MEDMOS addresses this at all, but Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Disambiguation might have some advice. The most important thing is that it's different from all of the other David Bulls. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks WAID. After posting I realized that WP:NCPDAB is the relevant general guideline for dab terms (the page has now been renamed to [[David Bull (politician)]]). Fwiw, the more general concern behind my original post here was that a loosely used dab term such as (doctor) may have the potential to seriously mislead readers by inappropriately framing a subject's notability (e.g. by implying that a Bachelor of Medicine graduate without any full clinical qualification is actually a notable physician). 86.190.132.158 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#RfC_on_linking_title_to_PMC proposes to make the links to PMC less visible. Nemo 10:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a question about how {{cite journal}} should behave. Namely, if the citation template doesn't have a URL, but it does have a PMC id (which means that it has a link to a free-as-in-beer copy of the full article at PubMed Central), should the article title be linked to the free PMC copy, or be left unlinked?
Including the link might result in more people reading the source; omitting it will likely have the opposite effect. Editors who already know what those strings of unexplained id numbers at the end of the citation do seem to be assuming that this is general knowledge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Hot Zone that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  22:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


Journal article needed

I am trying to get hold of the full text of PMID 29268618. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment redacted since I’m not really supposed to link to that website. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Seppi; that was easy. Had by student editing once again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Just as an update: see Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera for the issues raised so far (copyright violations and sourcing biomedical claims to primary sources). I've not had what I would consider a positive response so far, and I've not had time to examine all of the medical articles affected by this course (among those listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera #Groups and assignments), so if anybody has a little time to scan some of those articles for the issues mentioned and add their opinions, I'd be grateful. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, is this group's work already on your list of pages to check for copyvio concerns? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
No. I work from the list of https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en, not from lists of participants in school groups. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
There work should get run like all the rest of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Buzzwords

These four articles:

are the only ones tagged by WPMED and for containing an excessive number of buzzwords. If you are looking for a potentially satisfying copyediting task, please consider cleaning up one of these today. It's just a matter of finding buzzwords in the article, and making them buzz off. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

thanks for posting WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Burnout

The news media seem to have suddenly noticed that the WHO has assigned an ICD-11 code number to the idea of Occupational burnout (just like it did in ICD-10). The same chapter has codes for "my dog died when I was a kid" and "there are no schools around here". Please be on the lookout for well-meaning people who forget that "has a code number" is not the same as "is a disease". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm reliably informed that ICD-12 will have a code for the condition of 'forgetting that "has a code number" is not the same as "is a disease"'. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Presumably it will go in the same chapter with 'life-disrupting frustration with all these ever-changing codes'. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
That chapter is due to be implemented no later than 2020 in ICD-24. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy

A new account posted this article-like post. I suspected a possible copyviolation but a quick search didn't show me an obvious match. It may also be a complex edit request and is interesting, eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 04:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

it's not clear what changes they want to be made...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Meningohydroencephalocoele

Hello WT:MED! Can meningohydroencephalocoele be merged into meningocele, or should it stay as its own article? If it should stay separate, should it be listed on one of these two navboxes - {{Congenital malformations and deformations of nervous system}}/{{Congenital malformations and deformations of musculoskeletal system}}? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Meningocele redirects to spina bifida[2](Neural_tube_defect may be a better merge for Meningohydroencephalocoele[3]...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Med articles with no references

Hello! In my amblings through Category:All articles lacking sources, I've stumbled upon a number of articles on medical topics that are completely unsourced. I suspect that some of these could be easily sourced, while others may be best merged/redirected elsewhere. If someone with more know-how than me could take a look, that would be great. The ones I've found so far are pasted below (I tried to limit to medical topics. Let me know if you're interested in medical personnel or medical schools...). Any help would be much appreciated! Feel free to remove items from the list or strike them through if you address them to avoid duplicating our efforts. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead Processing Plan Occupational Safety/Environmental Health Discussion at Doe Run Company

There is a discussion over at Doe Run Company that might interest people in this wikiproject about the safety, health, and environmental impacts of lead processing facilities. -Furicorn (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

this reference[4] should be replaced w/ MEDRS ref for the text it supports in the above article "Exposure to these toxic heavy metals is associated with kidney failure, cancer, and other problems "...IMO(one of several problems)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be largely about this unsourced edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC about organizing the sections

Methylphenidate
commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Contacted a toxoicology/clinical pharmacology expert from Int Med, and attached his response, with my opinion too under discussion. Ian Furst (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Health for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Health is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Health until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 12:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

is now closed Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Health--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


Maria Dorothea Derrier

I am working on a draft as linked above. I need someone to confirm the medical terms used, as some of them I am not sure of, i.e. period in question is 1801-1835, most of the sources are written in German and thus must be translated. If someone could take a look, it would be most appreciated. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an anatomically intersexed person in the early 19th century. Most of the translation needs are therefore related to anatomy. Perhaps an editor such as User:Drahreg01, User:Redlinux or User:Partynia could help with this request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks WhatamIdoing! Yes, that is the issue. Lots of anatomical descriptions and I just want to make sure I did not link something inappropriately. SusunW (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

If you would ask for translation of certain terms in certain contexts, I could help. But I'm not able to review the entire text. Sorry, --Drahreg01 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Drahreg01 Thank you. Please see the talk page of the article. I truly appreciate your willingness to help. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

H&E stain page

Retina(stained w/ H&E)

I have been working on some pages that I think are part of the WikiProject Medicine, so I thought I should post something here and say hello. I'm basically finished "re-writing" the WP page on Haematoxylin. Currently, I have made some progress (I hope) on the H&E stain page (I have not worked on the "mode of action" section for H&E, but I hope to get to that). I made a few changes on the Histology page, although much work is still needed there. I would be happy to get any feedback especially if people see errors in what I have added, or if I have been too "bold" in my edits. Waughd (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

per Talk:Haematoxylin should post at Wikiproject(s) Chemicals & Molecular and Cell Biology(H&E stain article looks fine)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Waughd: The haematoxylin page is visually fantastic, both look well referenced. nice work. Ian Furst (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ian Furst: Thanks! If you see parts that need more work, please let me know. Waughd (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Waughd: Nothing critical. For me, the gallery of examples would have been helpful as a student and spoke to me. Seeing how different tissues stain with H&E. If anything, I'd just add more examples. Possibly show the differences between normal, low-grade ca, and high-grade ca mitotic figures as it's visually impressive. Ian Furst (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on Google Glass app

Hi everyone,

The following deletion discussion has been relisted to get more input from the community: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Glass breastfeeding app trial (2nd nomination). If you have time to comment, that would be great. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Video game addiction article

Given the latest developments on the topic of video game addiction, Video game addiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) could benefit from the edits of one or more editors here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sulfur soap

This new article about a medicinal soap could use review by medical experts. Thank you! Peacock (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I've blanked it and redirected to Sulfur#Pharmaceuticals. Most of it was off topic and what wasn't was unreliable/undue or spam. Alexbrn (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Peacock (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hardcastle syndrome

I started an article on Hardcastle syndrome, a rare genetic disorder associated with cancer in the long bones. The attention of other editors would be appreciated (which is my way of admitting that the article is still a relatively weak stub). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Orpha.net entry might lead you to more sources, and the OMIM page is a MEDRS-compliant secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Original 2015 articles are gone

Original Title: E-cigarettes and Lung Health

"Myths and Facts About E-cigarettes". American Lung Association. 2015.

Original Title: Myths and Facts About E-cigarettes

Does anyone know how to find and link to the original articles? QuackGuru (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure QuackGuru, here's the first version of both archived by the Wayback Machine:
"E-cigarettes and Lung Health". American Lung Association. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-10-04.
"Myths and Facts About E-cigarettes". American Lung Association. 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-12-04.
I just visited https://archive.org/ and entered the urls you provided into the box at top of screen. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 23:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow. That was fast. QuackGuru (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for a quick second opinion (and a rant about nutrition articles)

Can anyone see any reason to save the trainwreck of a pseudoarticle at Thermogenics? It's a genuine (albeit niche) topic, but the current mess of dictionary definitions, unsourced commentary, and a long aside about a completely unrelated use of the term in geology, is IMO worse than nothing. I'm inclined either to remove the medical aspect altogether and leave it as a geology article, or delete it altogether, unless anyone feels like improving it (I don't intend improving it myself; my interest in bodybuilders self-medicating with dubious nutritional supplements is nil); this is one of those cases where having a poor quality article is worse than having no article at all.

(At some point, someone who understands nutrition really needs to go through Category:Dietary supplements ruthlessly deleting the drivel. A lack of oversight, coupled with a steady flow of enthusiasts for various crank fads and a handful of outright spammers, have created the perfect environment for a big stack of questionably sourced fluff like Rejuvelac, Slow Cow and Hematogen to fester.) ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Problem with turning it into a geology article is that it doesn't seem to be a common use (or any use) term in geology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I removed the geology part which should not have been there Talk:Thermogenics. I realize that doesn't help with "what" the page is, other than it is not strictly a geological term that should have a WP page. Waughd (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus; I've never heard "Thermogenics". I've heard "thermogenesis" used verbally to describe Earth's internal heat budget and why Kelvin's calculations of the age of the earth from temperature profiles were way off (thermogenesis by radioactive decay kept the planet warmer longer). The short ages of the Earth given by the basic physics of cooling rates were rejected out of hand by geologists, who said that there had to be a lot more time to fit geological time into. Historic discussions of an unknown possible source of heat that would resolve the disagreement may have used the term "thermogenesis". There is also "thermogenic", said of fossil-derived methane to distinguish it from stuff coming out of modern swamps and cow pats, defined here. If any geological dictionary has bothered to define these, it might be appropriate to redirect/disambig accordingly, but I somewhat doubt the lack of a redirect will be a serious obstacle to understanding any geological text using these terms.
Actually, though, going through a few out-of-copyright geological dictionaries and making sure we have articles for them might be quite a useful exercise; a Wikisource text would make it largely automatable. HLHJ (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Papanicolaou stain

Papanicolaou stain(showing low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion from a Pap test)

I been working on the Papanicolaou stain page trying to add references and generally clean it up. I tried to make it clear that this was not the page for the Pap test or Pap smear and that this page is about the stain which helps a pathologist make a diagnosis, and not test that give a certain result. There are still a few references missing in the "results" section (although I have removed some unsourced things). I'm hoping to have some other folks take a look at it and make any changes they feel appropriate. I wasn't planning to work on this page, but I felt that I should add some references; then I began to have a "you touch it, you buy it" feeling. There are certainly a few rough areas. Waughd (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

might be useful ref[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I added it, plus one or two others, I removed the last few unsourced bits, and then removed the citations needed tag. Waughd (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a Wikipedia Library Card?

If you're working on content creation, please go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/ and see whether any of those sources would be useful to you.

Access is limited for some of these sources, so please consider signing up for just one to get started, see how much you use it, and then go back for more if it's working for you. If you want to coordinate a few, then these are currently available (at least one subscription available) and relevant for this group:

For most of these, to get access, you need to have made at least 500 edits (all wikis). Most people watching this page probably meet that standard. Please don't apply if you have access to the same collection at school/work. For example, if you're at a university whose library subscribes to the BMJ, then please use the university resources, and leave that account to someone else.

I encourage you to try this out for at least one, even if you're not quite sure if it will work for you. Anyone who does content creation could benefit from this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

great info, thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible similar articles? Femoropopliteal bypass surgery and Popliteal bypass surgery

From the article Popliteal bypass surgery, "Popliteal bypass surgery , more specifically known as femoral popliteal bypass surgery" sounds very similar to Femoropopliteal bypass surgery and from the lead paragraphs from both articles, looks similar as well. If they are talking about the same surgery, it may be good to merge the articles. Thanks! --Xaiver0510 (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think Femoropopliteal bypass surgery should be redirect to Popliteal bypass surgery as it's the better article, although, I'm pretty sure fem-pop bypass is the full name. Ian Furst (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Xaiver0510 thanks and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Template Medical Resources - modification

I am seeking comments for this RfC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Medical_resources#RfC_Pull_classification_codes_from_WD A sandbox new version of the template has an update to include SNOMED CT links. They come from WikiData but can be overridden. There are also tests to see if it works (and it does). If you have feedback, please post those to the RfC page (first link in this paragraph). EncycloABC (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Trying to get an article out of draft space and ready for review

I was wondering if someone would be able to read my article and give any feedback so that it doesn't get put back into draftspace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MitoQ

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

My advice would be to stop trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Per WP:MEDRS most of this draft is based on unreliable/unsuitable sources. You also have a problem per WP:PROMONAME. Alexbrn (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Am I able to ask what makes it sound like a promotion? I am using only peer reviewed articles and none are primary resources so I am not quite sure how it is unsuitable. Will look into changing the username if possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The first source cited isn't even MEDLINE indexed. The second hardly mentions MitoQ and where it does notes concerns about toxicity, which the draft article strangely omits to mention. With your COI you are not in a position to be writing any of this stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
MitoPower, we usually want review articles, not peer-reviewed original articles. That means sources such as PMID 30116495, PMID 30505656, PMID 30820778, etc., rather than sources like this article in Nature. There are more than a dozen MEDLINE-indexed review articles that have mentioned this particular compound during just the last few years.
In the bigger picture, it might make more sense for Wikipedia to have an article about mitochondrial-targeting antioxidants, rather than separate articles for all of the possible subjects. I suppose that it depends on whether you see the subject primarily as a matter of "science" or of "business": from the scientific perspective, the class is more important than the individual examples; from the business perspective, two equally effective compounds could have very different commercial outcomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Stupid question, but is there a way that we know that the article is MEDLINE-indexed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Would need to move to the generic name for starters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Mitoquinone mesylate, perhaps? There are several possible names, but that's easy to handle if/when the article moves to mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
MEDLINE-indexed reviews. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=MitoQ+review QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. Will go back and try and fix what I can and get more advice when I need it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Found it "MitoQ is a form of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) having the same identical active component as CoQ10 (Ubiquinone)."
Basically this should be redirected to coenzyme Q10 which I have done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not at all certain that is correct. This is not just CoQ10 with a different adjuvant. It's a different molecule (a different number of carbons). We don't normally merge different chemicals just because the active end of the molecule is the same. (If we did, then we'd have one article at Β-lactam antibiotic and nothing about any of the individual Penicillins.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Ref says "Since then, a series of TPP–antioxidant conjugates have been synthesized: TPP–ubiquinone conjugates (e.g., MitoQ), TPP–carboxy–proxyl conjugates (e.g., MitoCP), and TPP–vitamin E analogues conjugates (e.g., MitoE)."
So technically it is a "triphenylphosphonium (TTP)–ubiquinone conjugate". So the TPP appears primarily for getting it through the mitochondrial membrane. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay so looked at this stuff further. There have been a total of 4 clinical trials of this stuff per pubmed. Three is healthy people and one in people with Parkinsons. The only trial in a disease state found "We showed no difference between MitoQ and placebo on any measure of PD progression."[7]

So no this is not like the situation with B lactams. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that we can agree that "ubiquinone conjugated to something" is not the same as "ubiquinone all by itself". The salient question is whether "ubiquinone conjugated to something" should be redirected to "ubiquinone all by itself", or if it perhaps ought to be redirected to an article about the multiple types of "ubiquinone conjugated to something".
One way to think about that question is what you're going to say when the redirect is put up for deletion at WP:RFD on the grounds that (a) it's not mentioned in the target article (which IMO is a poor reason for deleting it, but it is one that's rather popular among certain MFD regulars), and (b) is actually a different chemical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Pineapple#Merge_Pineapple_juice

Pineapple Juice

Pineapple juice had some very poor supported medical claims. After trimming them there is not much left. Have thus proposed merging it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

SFP course

Hi WikiProject Medicine,

Starting this week, Wiki Education will be working with the Society of Family Planning (SFP) to improve articles about abortion and contraception through our Wiki Scholars & Scientists program. Their members, who are medical professionals and medical educators, will go through a 12-week process of learning about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS), evaluating articles, making minor edits, and finally drafting a contribution to an article. They will be working in sandboxes at first and will receive feedback before incorporating into mainspace. In effect, it will have a similar appearance of a course project, except the participants are not students but professionals. We will, of course, be exercising caution throughout the process given the controversial nature of the subject area and the challenges new users often encounter when starting to edit biomedical content.

Participants will receive an honorarium from SFP. Here are the steps we're taking to ensure adherence to best practices for COI/paid editing:

  • We have talked with SFP extensively to ensure they understand Wikipedia's rules about paid editing and COI. They do not expect edits to particular articles or for participants to push any particular point of view. Their interest is in improving public knowledge of the field in general.
  • Participants sign a contract with Wiki Education in which they agree to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including COI.
  • Participants will disclose their honorarium and participation in this course on their user page.
  • As with any such course, we cover Wikipedia policies and guidelines in depth. In this case, we plan to spend additional time on COI, and will spend extra time in sandboxes.

The list of editors will be available once they create their account on our Dashboard page here: SFP Wiki Scholars

We are obviously keeping a close eye on their work, but if you see any problematic edits, please feel free to flag them to me or to Elysia (Wiki Ed), who is also helping support the courses. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Many of the topics are protected and under edit restrictions User:Ryan (Wiki Ed). Likely all changes should be discussed one by one on the talk page until they become more experienced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this project with the WPMED community. JenOttawa (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Need help Refining Our Wikipedia Page

Hello community,

I am writing to request help from any experienced Wikipedia editors, especially those who are familiar with medicine and hospitals. I work at Cooley Dickinson Hospital in Northampton, Mass., and after much frustration was able to create our basic Wikipedia page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooley_Dickinson_Hospital

Wikipedia has kept its weight/relevance rather low, I fear, since I am an employee and it considers me as a bit too close to be an objective author, though I strove to keep the material completely unbiased and simply factual/historical. Some editors have gone in since I originally created it and helped out a bit, but I would like to get it closer to our affiliate Mass General Hospital's page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_General_Hospital

...which I sort of modeled ours on (even though we are a much smaller hospital). If anyone can help improve it; i.e. further expand the info box, add photos and our logo (which looks much like MGH's), I can provide files and would very much appreciate the experienced help.

I am a fairly tech-savvy person and happy to help however I can, but an inexperienced Wikipedia author/editor, so any help would be much appreciated!

Thank you, Tom

Thomas Sturm Digital Media Coordinator Cooley Dickinson Health Care 413-582-2262 Office tsturm@cooleydickinson.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.61 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Tom, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Wikipedia works differently than a typical website; it's all about communal effort and collaboration. The Mass General page has evolved over 15 years, with contributions from some 313 (volunteer) editors, and >400 edits. I would suggest that you create an account, and make some edits to pages that your not affiliated with to understand how pages evolve, and how the community works. In the mean time, give it a bit of time and (if the page receives pageviews) people will improve it. Feel free to leave your username here, and we can link some "how to" information. Ian Furst (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I second what Ian has said, and I will add that one of the first things you will realise if you work on articles on Wikipedia is how dependent we are on sources. We rely on finding sources and basing our content on that. If there are no sources, we can't write the article. One of the things you could do to help is to find sources (articles, interviews, press stories) about the hospital that would be interesting to our general audience. There may also be more statistics that you could find sources for, and you could take photographs and upload them to Commons (see Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard) so that they can be used in the article. You can link to anything you find on the article's talk page (Talk:Cooley Dickinson Hospital) and other editors will help you to use those resources. If you have any problems, please feel free to ask again here. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Merger proposal - "Adrenaline" and "Epinephrine (medication)"

I have proposed that the articles Adrenaline and Epinephrine (medication) be merged. Discussion and input is welcome here. --Kwekubo (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

was moved--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Suicide awareness

Have raised some concerns on the talk page HERE.

Wondering others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sustanon

Recently, the article Sustanon was turned into a dab page after being moved to Testosterone propionate/testosterone phenylpropionate/testosterone isocaproate/testosterone decanoate and a separate article created at Testosterone propionate/testosterone phenylpropionate/testosterone isocaproate. Both of these article titles are horrendously cumbersome, and certainly not WP:COMMONNAMES. I think they should be merged under the title Sustanon again, notwithstanding the usual guideline of listing drugs under generic names. (Pinging @Medgirl131:, who created the dab page.)

I don’t want to formally propose the merge myself, as my schedule is unpredictably intermittent these days. — Gorthian (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

We generally go with generic not brand names per WP:PHARMMOS
User:Medgirl131 edits are compliant with the guidelines so restoring them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Lassa fever lead check

Hello. An article on Lassa fever has just been published in WikiJMed (doi:10.15347/wjm/2019.002). I've just used it to expand the Lassa fever Wikipedia article (before, after). I've also updated the infobox image to something a bit more dynamic. I know that WP:Med has additional guidelines on article leads. Could someone with more experience in this have a check whether any of the abstract here be useful for the lead? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Evolution and evolvability for this sort of effort to work WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS must be followed by the WJMED. In this case it was not. I am working to correct the changes. Do you want me to also correct the WJMED article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Found some copyright issues unfortunately, so have rolled back the changes in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Thank you! Both significant problems and I've contacted the author and editors to notify them. The Copyvio issue seems to have been introduced after our copyvio check at submission so will need to be dealt with immediately. The MEDMOS issue is also a major shortfall. I've created a copy at this link and anyone at WP:MED welcome to direct edit or write a list of problems on its talkpage for the author to address - whichever you prefer. I'll also raise updating our procedures to prevent anything similar in future. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
If you compare the first draft to just to the WHO site it shows a 70.8 violation possible, but if run as a search it finds nothing. Much of the text at issue seems to be in both versions of articles. I can't figure out why Copyvio didn't see it in the first draft. Waughd (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Bioelectromagnetic medicine

An interesting fresh article needing more eyes. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A collection of woo. I removed a number of claims based on primary or animal studies, and that didn't leave much. It really needs somebody who knows what the best sources are to check further. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mention that, but, it's the reason I posted the notice, of course. I'm not an MD, but remember of the use of vibrations for bone healing, and of course radiotherapy and magnetic resonance; the rest seemed dubious... —PaleoNeonate – 18:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am looking for the best option to link occupational health monitoring. Any suggestions? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but there doesn't seem to be an over-arcing article on the health and safety agencies around the globe. So probably redirect to Occupational safety and health? Little pob (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There is also Workplace health surveillance Waughd (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
That looks like the better option. Little pob (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Good enough for now. Thanks, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Requesting stub article for "embryotoxic" / "embryotoxicity"

The term "embryotoxic" occurs a few dozen articles, and "embryotoxicity" in two or three.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=Embryotoxic&advancedSearch-current={}&ns0=1

Can we please make a stub article defining these terms? (Or make a redirect to an appropriate definition in an existing article.)

(I'm not asking for a definition of these terms here, I'm asking that a stub or redirect be created.)

Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Is Teratology an appropriate redirect for now? Little pob (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that's the closest we have. Fetotoxic and Fetotoxicity should be redirected there, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done All four redirected to teratology, and tagged with {{R from subtopic}} and {{R with possibilities}}. Little pob (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

StatPearls

StatPearls publishes fairly simple overviews / reviews of topics. They have 4,676 that are currently pubmed indexed.[8] They cover broad topics that other review article may not and additionally they are under an open license specifically CC BY 4.0. Well not a perfect source an okay starting point in my opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

[9]yes a good source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Anatomy schematics (2nd edition)

Hello,

a few days ago (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_123#Anatomy_schematics) I mentioned interesting anatomy charts being published by the University of Geneva. I am delighted to announce that Unige has agreed to publish these documents under a Cc-by-sa licence, and that they are now online on Commons. They are currently in PDF form, we can convert to PNG and especially in SVG to translated the labels into languages other than English and French.

  • Sagittal, English
    Sagittal, English
  • 3D, French
    3D, French
  • 3D, English
    3D, English
  • Face, English
    Face, English

I hope you enjoy them. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Rama very good news, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree thanks for your work on this User:Rama Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Super, —PaleoNeonate – 18:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't mind playing around with some of them to convert to SVG with multilingual labels. Are the pdf's the only image type we will receive? (If so, I'll need to remove the existing labels and recreate with svg text - but if we have blank diagrams, it will save some work). Ian Furst (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I work at the universtiy of Geneva and I'm the one who drew the diagrams. I used illustrator and still have the original files that I can share with you. Which format you prefer? Is SVG OK? Rom1D13 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rom1D13:The svg files would be perfect, or the .ai format is fine too as I also use illustrator. My plan is to move the labels to the bottom of the svg code, and put them in <g> blocks with code to look at the system language preference. If you want to email me through the Wikimail, we can find somewhere to share the files. Thank you again for doing this!Ian Furst (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist management

I've been trying to reduce the size of my watchlist, the hope that I'll use it more. I just found out about an option in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist to "Add direct unwatch/watch markers (×/+) to watched pages with changes" option. It might make it easier to edit your watchlist as you go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, WAID, that's handy. Alternatively, if you already have Navigation popups enabled (and why would anyone not have them enabled?), then you can hover over any page name in your watchlist and pick 'actions → un|watch' from the resulting popup. --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Auto-fill based on PMID

This appears to be broken for some time now per Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar#Auto-fill_based_on_PMID_is_down.

This backups appears to be down.[10]

But this one by User:Nephron appear to be still working.[11]. Nephron wondering if you could help fix ours?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Might be related to this Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try that, I've been using this one for just PMID and a different one for DOI. Waughd (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The ref tool bar still works for DOIs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about Template:Abnormal_clinical_and_laboratory_findings_for_blood

Hi there. I'm a new editor, so sorry if this is a silly question. I've been working on an article about an abnormal blood smear finding, Draft:Critical green inclusions, and if the article is accepted at AfC I'd like to add it to Template:Abnormal_clinical_and_laboratory_findings_for_blood. However, the title of this template includes ICD-10 codes, so does that mean that only findings listed in ICD-10 are allowed in the template? And of course, any feedback on my draft would be appreciated. :) Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on the template use, but I'd suggest using the medical tests manual of style to format the article as it currently exists. Nice work, and thank you for the contribution. Ian Furst (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about the lack of a specific inclusion term in the ICD. Classifications can't cover everything. As a coder, I'd use R72 if I saw that finding (and it wasn't linked to another condition by the clinician). I forget which templates can be listed on draft space articles, but {{Infobox diagnostic}} or {{Infobox medical condition}} with {{medical resources}} might be of interest here. Little pob (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested page name change

Have requested a page name change from Pneumatosis to its given aka Emphysema. Emphysema was previously merged to COPD. Normally it would be a simple case of WP:COMMON NAME. Any thoughts or input would be welcome here. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Emphysema commonly means COPD. It is less commonly and technically used to mean pneumotosis. The usage stats of this term we see via Google hits is not for this article specifically but for COPD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Help?

I'm not even sure this is the right place to ask this but can someone with more medical knowledge than me (the bar is low, I don't understand any of this) take a look at this grade-A garbage? I took out some refspam and I'm inclined to agree with this ip's assessment as well. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: This is indeed the right place to ask. I was part-way through surgically removing all the bits of woo sourced to primary studies and to the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (I wonder why they don't have an article</sarcasm>), when Doc James took an axe to it. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes redirected this brand name to the generic name for what is being discussed. User in question has added links around Wikipedia which I am cleaning up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-relatedly, I wonder if WP:MED doesn't need to have a writing guide similar to WP:JWG (and its COI advice). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb I think they do, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDCOI. Waughd (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I had in mind. WP:MEDCOI is a bit short, but it doesn't necessarily have to be longer. If you feel the 'how to' table of WP:JWG#COI is worth important, feel free to steal it! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Public Health Emergency of International Concern

Hi anyone...I have nominated this for dyk...would anyone like to edit or expand? Whispyhistory (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

did a few edits[12]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thank you Whispyhistory (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Australian anesthesiologists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Australian anesthesiologists, of interest to this project, has been nominated for possible renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC).


Merger proposal for Medical technologist and Medical laboratory scientist

Lab

I've proposed that Medical technologist be merged with Medical laboratory scientist. If you'd like to comment on the proposal you can do so here. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft talk:CredibleMeds#Opinions of subject matter experts sought

 You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:CredibleMeds#Opinions of subject matter experts sought. Worldbruce (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I've left my opinion. CredibleMdds is a really valuable resource and has adequate secondary coverage. The draft, currently a stub, is encyclopaedic enough in its current state but could do with expansion, especially given the volume of references found to support the text so far. PeaBrainC (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Mayo Clinic on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Mayo Clinic on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Mayo Clinic. — Newslinger talk 22:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

QuackGuru, I've just gotten through all this. Starting seven RfCs on one article in a dozen days makes it hard to keep up with responses. Could you slow down a bit on new RfCs, please? HLHJ (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system

See Talk:Electric smoking system#Aerosol and smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Marketing of electronic cigarettes

See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes#Proposal to redirect. Is the page a POV Fork? QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Nicotine and Passive vaping sections. Should both sections be deleted? QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system

See Talk:Electric smoking system#First sentence. Should we include the word "smoke", "nicotine" or "tar" in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Article scope

An RfC on the scope of the article needs input, along with a logically-connected move request. Of course, the move request will close before the scope RfC... HLHJ (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system

See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Re-RfC_on_IQOS_content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system

See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Re-RfC_on_pizza_image. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safer_than_tobacco_claim. QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Red skin

I've recently converted Red skin from a redirect to Flushing (physiology) to a disambiguation page. Further entries to the disambiguation page are welcome. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I added links to Erythema and Erythroderma, but they probably need descriptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Descriptions added. Little pob (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes {{annotated link}} can be a quick fix:
  • {{annotated link|Erythema}} → Erythema – Redness of the skin or mucous membranes
  • {{annotated link|Erythroderma}} → Erythroderma – Inflammatory skin disease with redness and scaling
Not in this case, of course: I had to add the short descriptions to illustrate the idea. But someday ... --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
That looks like it might sometimes be useful for ==See also== sections, which are supposed to have descriptions but usually don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

AFC Reviewer needed

The draft looks good to be honest, but I want to ensure that this is not a hoax. It'd be pretty terrible of me to approve an article like this without ensuring the information within is completely accurate. Ping for response. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

reads like an 'ad'[13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Not a hoax, but part of a bigger "liquid biopsy" initiative that's very early in development from Johns Hopkins (just based on ready, I have no personal knowledge of the topic). UroSEEK, CancerSEEK, and PapSEEK. I cannot find who is funding all of this from the article but I think it's something we should look into. E.g. should the generic 'liquid biopsy' where genetic mutations are detected in the fluids from around a tumor, or some other term be used. Or specific pages for each cancer that can be detected in this way? Also, is it clear to everyone in the article that this is still in trials? That's what I understand from the articles. Ian Furst (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Found the link to the research group. Ian Furst (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Some of it's been paid for by the US taxpayers, and more of it will (eventually) be venture capital, if their results with CancerSeek are anything to go by. At a glance it looks like pretty typical arrangements for commercializing research done through a major research university. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ian Furst: makes a good point about using a more generic name for the page title. Maybe with papSEEK as a subheading? Or maybe this should be paired down and added to Pap test? (although it is not a PAP test so maybe not). Based on a pubmed search, it seems to be relevant enough that there should be something on WP that covers it, but at that same time it appears to be basically a technique of running PCR on samples. I have not read the cited articles, but it seems like a toned down version should be included somewhere. Waughd (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Tbh, it seems like a novel approach to cancer detection and (imo) certainly deserves an article. My only concern is that xxxSEEK terminology appears to be unique to this group (at present, maybe it will get wider acceptance like CRISPR). Can @Cholee2019: give some guidance. (1) if user is affiliated with Johns Hopkins, (2) what the preferred name for the generic process is called. From what I can see, it's not a patented process, or trademarked term so could well have a space on here. Ian Furst (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the Pap test. It's more like the CA-125 test, except using DNA and having a chance at being useful as a screening test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
We would need to find secondary sources. Could go in the research section of Cervical cancer screening. Trimmed a bunch of primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. The PR news items should not count as good secondary sourcing. PapSEEK is a catchy brand name for a study seeking to establish territory and to enhance its PR potential; many clinical sequencing research projects use such PR friendly monikers, BabySeq, etc. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that information about an experimental test for Ovarian cancer and Endometrial cancer should go in an article about Cervical cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
If it's to be merged, the draft's lead says it's a screening test. How about Cancer screening#Research? Little pob (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Little pob that sounds fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Medical AfC submissions

I've been browsing the talk page archives and I've noticed that some users have expressed a desire for a roundup of medicine related AfC submissions. So here's a selection of recently submitted medical-related drafts. This list is incomplete, of course, but I hope the AfC reviewers here find it helpful. I've added a short description of the subject for articles where it's not immediately obvious from the title.

Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

thank you for posting them here--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
User:DGG sometimes takes interest in these sorts of topics. A few are a little weak on sources especially independent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I do work primarily on AfC and New Page patrol these days. I will look at these.
One of our problems at NPP are the specialized articles submitted that few people there are prepared to evaluate. The many promotional ones from medical device companies and health organizations and practitioners are easy to deal with on the usual ground,, but some general hards are more complicated. The question at NPP is not whether they are high quality articles, but just whether or no they would be likely to pass AfD. I'll mention a few here from time to time. If anyone wants to help by leaving a comment, it is not necessary to learn all the arcane intricacies of the process; Just edit the page and put a line beginning Comment at the top, & sign as if on a talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Class for medical librarians from OCLC

Wikipedia:OCLC has been engaged in Wikipedia projects since 2012. From ~2016-2018 they were organizing wiki outreach to public libraries. It seems that they are now doing outreach to medical libraries. I thought that I would share here.

They have an invitation to their online class series. Check it out -

I am not aware of any of the presenters or anyone at OCLC ever editing Wikipedia's medical content or having conversations about Wikipedia's medical content with anyone here at WikiProject Medicine.

I learned of this event from the Wikimedia Libraries mailing list.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:DGG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone anywhere can comment or discuss our content, or give instruction on editing wikipedia. I suppose one question is whether what they are doing is in some way authorized or sponsored, and I do not know how to figure out the intricacies of that. But the implied general question is whether what they are doing reflects our guidelines, but I do not know the details of their program. I've never had any involvement with them.
In my first years here, I did try to get various library groups interested in WP. I gave a number of presentations, all received politely, but none with any immediate effect. . Times have changed, and others here are working with libraries quite well without my input. . DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
(I pinged you really as "FYI", not an implied question, but I like your answer. :-)) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

GMbP

"Group malingering by proxy" bothers me for several reasons, including the flagrant bias in the article on the man who first proposed the diagnosis. I'm willing to grant that he's probably notable, but is the diagnosis itself? Should it be made into a redirect? DS (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I note that none of the English references actually mention GMbP - and I did check the full text of the journal articles. Several of the Swedish references seem to be news articles and blogs that clearly don't meet WP:MEDRS - see [14], [15], [16]. Nothing relevant comes up on Pubmed when searching for MABP, GMBP or "group malingering/munchausen by proxy". Overall, this seems like a WP:NEOLOGISM that's mostly used by one person and is more notable as a political controversy than as a medical condition. I would support a redirect to Thomas Jackson (psychiatrist), which already covers this issue. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added a ==See also== to the redirect at Resignation syndrome. We don't seem to have an article specifically about the affected children in Sweden, which surprises me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC on whether or not women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence on a global scale

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#Request for Comments on whether women are globally the overwhelming victims of domestic violence. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Lassa fever check version 2

Lassa virus

If anyone would be willing to take another look at the updated and correct WikiJMed article on Lassa Fever, it would be much appreciated.

Discussions with the author indicate that they were under two misapprehensions: that an inline citation was sufficient attribution when using text from a CC-BY source, and that WHO was published CC0. There is discussion on exactly how to make up the previous version (retracted or major revisions) and whether a case study will be submitted to COPE for feedback.

The journals are also updating their processes to try to prevent these problems in future:

  1. More clearly indicating to authors what level of either attribution or paraphrasing is needed if using text from a CC BY source (link).
  2. For any WikiJMed articles intended to be added to wikipedia running articles past this talkpage before publication (link).

Further process and guideline updates in draft/discussion (e.g. making authors confirm that they've read MEDMOS at submission). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This source [17] that was copied from however was not open source but fully copyrighted. Would be good if you got people to follow WP:MEDMOS for review type articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

New to Wiki editing

Hello all,

I have a bunch of Peer-Reviewed Journal articles that I plan on using for posts. The video for this Wiki Med group section talked about specific sources, is my peer-reviewed articles sufficient? I am aware of the hierarchy of health evidence and Systematic Reviews being at the top. I also wish to inform that I have a BHSc so am knowledgeable about a few topics. Citing everything is something I agree with and do. Hope to work with everyone in a positive manner.

CanadianUsr19 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC) July 2 2019(CanadianUsr19)

@CanadianUsr10: Welcome eh! Pages that are tagged with Wikiproject Medicine, generally, should only have Cochrane reviews, high quality reviews (e.g. systematic reviews), meta-analysis, or text book references. For some less frequented topics, where you can only find textbook references that no one can click to, review articles are typically accepted. The goal is at least one reference for each statement of fact. There are exceptions (e.g. talking about societal issues related to a medical topic) but we like to ensure that the information is "generally accepted". Peer-reviewed is not enough. Feel free to hit us up on this page if you want a more experienced editor to take a look. Also, if someone reverts your edit, don't sweat it! That's part of Wikipedia. If you want to know who are the main editors on a page, click History>>Page statistics and you'll find the usernames who edit the page a lot. Enjoy. Ian Furst (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Literature reviews in major journals and position statements of major medical or government organizations are also appropriate. We tend not to use primary sources even though they may be peer reviewed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Welcome, @CanadianUsr10: just to chip in... With regards to "I have a bunch of Peer-Reviewed Journal articles" and "my peer-reviewed articles"; I can't quite work out if you mean they're articles that you've been contributed to in some way (authoring, co-authoring, research assistant etc.), or articles you've otherwise found. I'm assuming it's the latter; but, just in case it's the former, self citing is discouraged. Little pob (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Mentor

I am editing Wikipedia since 2012 and have created many articles. I have created and edited biographies, history, culture, geography and event articles. I am educated in dentistry but have never tried to create medical article. I tried once to start editing medical article but refrained because I was unsure about too many things. The biggest challenge for me was the identification of acceptable medical sources. I need a mentor who can adopt and guide me personally, answer queries and correct me and the article when I am wrong. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Added a link to your talk page. If you have the capacity to translate, given your experience as a Wikipedian, that could also be a major contribution to the medicine project. Ian Furst (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
You can create a draft in your sandbox and WikiProject Medicine can review it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs some attention. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

yes it seems unusually busy[18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Naming of "Template:Infobox medical condition (new)"

Discussion HERE. There has been a request to drop the "new". I have restored it to how it was before so that more people can weight in as the move breaks the ability to use content translation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Ozzie10aaaa apologizes. Appears I am mistaken and the move does appear to work as the old template was moved at the same time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
we all make mistakes(but your still the best leader)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Which image should we use for the lead

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Of this article Talk:Rheumatoid_arthritis#Lead_image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

2017-18 case study from UCSF

See more information about this Wikipedia medicine classroom outreach at Wikipedia:UCSF School of Medicine.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey about Trump's health

You are invited to participate in a discussion about Trump's health at Talk:Donald Trump#Survey. Thank you! Atsme Talk 📧 16:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Epic megalist of med articles with issues

An up-to-date, sortable list of all WP:MED-categorised articles with maintenance tags is here. Issues range from minor (CS1 errors) to major (original research) to mystifying (plot summary needs attention??). Whether you're into copyediting, NPOV debates or purging spam, this is where you can find your thing.

I'm noting this as it hasn't been linked from WP:MED for at least a couple of years due to a transclusion issue, which I've brought to CFCF's attention. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Adrian J. Hunter thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Are Flat wart and Verruca plana the same?

The article verruca plana says that "flat wart" is a synonym? Do these two pages cover the same topic? I've suggested a merge, but maybe someone from this project can have a look and see if that would be appropriate. Deli nk (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Restored the redirect. Moved the technical name to the common name. Basically deleted the existing content as it was created as an advert it appears in 2017. User:Deli nk thanks for this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Photos on drug articles

So this is an odd one. Trawling through the orphaned files category, I found File:OClines.JPG and File:OCabuse.JPG, which depict ground-up Oxy pills prepared for recreational use. The current Oxycodone article doesn't have any such images. Drug articles like cocaine and MDMA do, while heroin and methamphetamine do not. Are the images I linked appropriate for the article? If not, should they be sent to Commons and left alone, or should I seek deletion? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The methamphetamine article does have a picture of crystal meth. Recreational use of oxycodone is a significant topic and I think the pictures could be useful in the relevant section of the article... I would go with File:OClines.JPG because the rolled up 20 in the other picture is a little over the top. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry I meant more like, there isn't a photo of meth all ground up and ready to go in that article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. Since crystal meth is exclusively used recreationally, I think a picture of the drug itself is enough to illustrate recreational use. But I can't think of a better way to show the recreational use of oxycodone. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Cytology

I have noticed that cytology is redirected to cell biology. Although cytology might be defined as the study of cells, it seems to me the more common usage (Google cytology) is more in line with cytopathology. Based on the old cytology talk page it seems cytology was merged with cell biology. I have no opinion on whether the cytology page should be aspirated from the punchcards (or wherever old pages go), but wonder if it would be reasonable/useful to have cytology redirect to cytopathology instead of cell biology. Just an idea. Waughd (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A WP:Hatnote at cell biology could work too. For example {{Redirect|Cytology|the branch of pathology|Cytopathology}}. Little pob (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

{{VEFriendly}}

I just discovered this exists... This community is so amazing sometimes. I have been asking the WMF for the ability to edit talk and other pages with VE for a few years now. Someone built a tool which allows this more than two years ago without needing to convince anyone to make any further changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Works failure fairly well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The tool is the equivalent of hand-editing the URL. "Works failure well" is presumably a spilling chucker error, but it is surprisingly apt. That button has a history of spectacular failures if you have the 2017WTE enabled. Also, the template broke back in April (nothing happened when you clicked it). But as long as you accept its limitations and unofficial could-break-at-any-moment status, then some people will like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, this is fantastic!! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 15:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Romanowsky stain page

Giemsa stained blood film

User SpicyMilkBoy and I have been recently working on the Romanowsky stain page and it's probably time for some fresh eyes to take a look at it. There are a few areas that could use some expansion, and a couple of stain variants that still need to be added, but I think it's getting close. Any feedback is welcome. Waughd (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

did a couple of edits(article looks good!)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Sadomasochism, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Hopefully someone here is a glutton for punishment. Waughd (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Evidence based medicine. —PaleoNeonate – 00:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Greg Marchand (surgeon)

Posting the notice here because it may be more appropriate than at the science reference desk where it was discussed (thread). —PaleoNeonate – 00:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a hoax - he does seem to be a doctor who invented a technique and published some papers about it - but the article is promotional and refbomby. I didn't look through all the references but all of the papers I spot checked were written by the guy himself, which means they're not independent coverage. I'm not too familiar with the notability guidelines on academics so I'll leave the decision to someone else, but my first instinct is that this should go to AfD. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I have very strong COI/paid concerns partly for reasons I won't go in to. I've asked the editor for clarification. I'll give the editor a short time to respond n a satisfactory fashion and post them on COIN if not. Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
We have different brand new accounts promoting him across 5 languages. We need an SPI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the cross wiki aspect along with the questionable recent 'translation' of Mariela Garriga . I didn't notice this wasn't even the first time it had been attempted. Given that, I've opened the COIN thread here WP:COIN#Likely cross wiki paid editing farm. Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow! A zillion things have happened since I dropped the query at the reference desk. The power of the community at work, I suppose. I am not surprised, since it raised a number of red flags even to a novice like me-- A perfect article on surface, on a subject that would require expertise to assess, without an edit history, dropped to mainspace by a very new user, with a misleading summary. I found the threads at COIN, AfD, the archived AfD and the editor's talk page. Is there an SPI too? Can I see it, or is it private between noms and defenders? Thanks to everyone who looked in on it and got involved. Looks like I'll learn a lot for having decided not to just skip over this one, without asking anyone. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 07:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Linear no-threshold model

Does Linear no-threshold model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) fall within the scope of WP:MEDRS? I have been reading some sources and I wonder whether we want all these individual studies as they seem to be not MEDRS compliant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that, yes, much of that article falls within MEDRS. That said, this is not a context where traditional RCTs are possible, so we should interpret MEDRS with care taking into account the sort of science possible and considered of high quality. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
It would be good to keep the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) advice in mind. MEDRS's ideal (which is not a minimum requirement) is often not appropriate for questions that stray too far from questions such as "Does this treatment work?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Paracoccidioidomycosis

Anyone interested in collaborating for this fascinating condition to get to GA status and then submit to WJ of Med? Currently C class with my edits last week. Thx --[E.3][chat2][me] 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

E.3 I made some minor edits, some of them could be off-base, so please revert as you see fit (no offense will be taken). As being new to WP, and as non-clinician, you should look carefully at my edits. My only suggestion would be that some of the terminology is a bit thick. Waughd (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#RfC:_How_should_those_with_the_condition_be_referred?

Being discussed again. Further input requested. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Comprehensive open release of fully identifiable medical data and biomedical hackathons

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 124
 – Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Unarchived thread

This link is about a collaborative biomedical research event hosted by a nonprofit called Silicon Valley Artificial Intelligence: https://sv.ai/undiagnosed-1

That webpage covers a research case involving a specific patient – who happens to be my brother – that signed an open data release of virtually all of his medical records (>200 pages of documents), proteomic data, metabolomic data, and genomic data (i.e., his sequenced exome and hybrid second/third-generation sequencing of his entire genome) for the purpose of permitting ~200 researchers from across the globe (e.g., USA, Canada, UK, India, Japan) access to his medical data during a hackathon in which they attempted to identify the biomolecular basis of his condition using statistical and data science (AI and machine learning) methods.

My brother isn't at all concerned about his privacy, so there was no attempt to deidentify his medical data or even hide his identity from the public (e.g., his first name, medical history, and face are all included on that webpage and all over SVAI's twitter feed); going to the event to collaborate with researchers by answering questions sort of obviates the point in doing that. One of the recommendations from that event was for his family members (e.g., me) to have their whole exomes and/or genomes sequenced and included in the analysis; so, I too am going to end up openly releasing identifiable genomic and metabolomic data and possibly a few medical records as well.

I'm bringing this up here since I have a couple questions.

  • Biomedical research hackathons are relatively common events and many (including the one for my brother) are conducted in collaboration with the NIH; these seem to generate a lot of news coverage, but I can't seem to find anything more than a passing mention of these on Wikipedia. The only tangentially relevant article about these that I found was Big Data to Knowledge (@BlueRasberry: I saw you created that). Aren't these sufficiently notable events to merit coverage somewhere?
  • This isn't the first time that identifiable medical data has been released by a patient on this scale into an open research database (e.g., SVAI's previous patient did this: "Paseman is adamant. “What I want to do is tell people who have rare, terminal, untreatable diseases is HIPAA is not really a big deal. We’re almost dead anyway, who cares? Let’s come up with a way to release all this information out there so people can use it.”). I know that a large database of fully identifiable biomedical data (e.g., pan-omics data, medical records, and images) could be used to do a lot of high-impact clinical research as well as other interesting genetics research (e.g., images of people paired with their sequenced genomes could be used to analyze how genetic variation accounts for differences in body/facial structure). Does anyone know of an initiative to create such a database? Found https://pgp.med.harvard.edu/participate - that’s exactly what I had in mind, but 400 whole genomes is a tiny database. There are ~300000 SRA-indexed human WGS.
  • I'm curious to know if anyone is aware of another hackathon or research event like this that attempted to "diagnose" (i.e., identify the pathophysiology of) a patient with an undiagnosed rare and presumably unclassified disease before; couldn't seem to find one from googling. Given the amount of time and resources involved, I can't imagine these would be common. This approach to diagnosis – and any other type of patient-centered hackathon for that matter – really takes the idea of precision medicine to another level. It blows my mind that all of that concerted effort was just the first round of work on a molecular diagnosis.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Am not aware of any other events. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've never heard of this before, and have never heard of an even like it. But it's wild. Do you see a path for Wikipedia to fit in? Ian Furst (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2019
Hmm. Not really, although I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to float the idea by them. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this connected to the Undiagnosed Diseases Network? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No, they operate on recommendations and patient applications. The only point of contact they have with the broader undiagnosed/rare disease community is my brother, who has an extensive network and is a very outspoken advocate for them. The way that he and SVAI met was by recommendation of the two people listed in the acknowledgements section of [19]; John already had whole exome and short-read whole genome sequencing and was looking for a research sponsor for PacBio long-read WGS, which is very expensive. SVAI was looking for someone who had a challenging/complex case history, was connected to a patient community, wanted to help organize more research for that disease category, and was willing to open source their data. My brother agreed to open source and SVAI agreed to finance the sequencing, but they ended up getting my brother 7 new or updated test instruments, including a better short-read sequence and two types of long-reads (PacBio and Oxford Nanopore), worth about $20000 in total.
The UDN was a dead end when my brother approached them several years ago. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
My brother was talking at length at that hackathon about what he thought was the best approach to molecular diagnostics for rare disease patients individually and in aggregate; apparently he stuck a chord with a lot of people. The Indian woman who led the team from MedGenome contacted my brother and offered to provide him $6000 of free short-read scRNA-Seq on samples from various tissues (i.e., multiple transcriptome sequences). This morning, a researcher from Stanford's Undiagnosed program who participated in the hackathon offered to onboard him there, generate a few more long-read instruments and run algorithms on them, and then run the validation tests that were mentioned at the hackathon as well as validation tests on what their new algorithms implicate; apparently, all of that testing will be free as well.

@WhatamIdoing: Some of the researchers at the event were talking to my brother about the possibility that it might be Marfan, but the clinical phenotype and genetic variant didn't seem to fit.

@Ian Furst and Evolution and evolvability: Following up on what Ian asked above, would the Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Medicine accept primary research submissions pertaining to various applications of AI, bioinformatics, biostatistics, and computational biology to genomics and/or molecular diagnostics? https://f1000research.com/ sponsored SVAI's recent event, so they promoted publishing team research in that open access journal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I realize that the current editorial staff might not have the technical background to referee submissions involving AI, machine learning, and/or bioinformatics (hackathons involve the formation of collaborative cross-functional teams of individuals with differing domain knowledge/expertise, who then work together to create software for a particular purpose); assuming they're interested and the subject matter isn't an issue for the journal, I'm sure someone from that group would be willing to help review submissions as an associate editor. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Out of my expertise, but maybe User:Ozzie10aaaa can comment. Ian Furst (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe the best individual(by far) to ask would be Evolution and evolvability(as Seppi indicated by his ping)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


Moved from User talk:Seppi333
 – Moved the thread here to centralize the discussion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seppi - I'm so sorry to have missed the post you made at WT:MED/Archive_124. I wanted to just add a quick note here that I think something like what you're talking about could very well be published through WikiJMed. There are some editors at WikiJSci (especially User:Jacknunn (link) who could advise on considerations and format, and help out in gathering suitable peer reviewers. Depending on exactly what description and analyses are being done, it could be a series of small publications, or a single publication that goes through multiple versions as new parts are added (versioning like a textbook, or extending with addenda). Let me know if you're still interested in the idea. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Hey there; sorry about the late reply. I haven't been active on WP much lately due to a loss of interest in editing; subsequent to the discussions at WT:MOSMED and elsewhere, I don't really feel like my work here has much of an impact. Anyway, I'm still open to the idea. I spoke to my brother about it; I'm going to speak to SVAI's founder over the phone and sell the idea to him sometime this week. I'm fairly confident that he'll be amenable to the idea of working with WJM as a publisher of articles related to the hackathons they host for a couple of reasons, but the main ones are that WJM is an open access journal (NB: SVAI is strongly pro-open knowledge and open-data) and, by comparison to their current journal partner, has much lower publication costs (i.e., no costs with WJM vs $250–1000 per article with their current publisher, depending on the length); hence, they don't have to sponsor the publication fees for their attendees if they work with WJM as their publisher. That said, I'd like to be able to offer an objective comparison when I talk to him, so what would you say are the other benefits and drawbacks of publishing primary research articles in WJM vs this journal (F1000 research)? I wouldn't expect an influx of submissions following their events if SVAI opts to work with WJM since few (if any) research groups at biomedical hackathons actually opt to publish their research. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: Figured I'd ping you on this page since I moved the discussion here. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Thanks for the ping. That sounds reasonable. Below are what I think the most relevant aspects of WikiJMed would be for this sort of research article.
Benefits:
  • No processing fees
  • Flexible format
    • no max/min length (can publish very short or very long publications, or ones with unusual wordcount:figure ratios)
    • versioned updates (can update or expand an article with new data after being re-checked by peer review again)
    • experimental formats (if it can be sensibly peer reviewed, we can publish it, e.g. single diagrams or annotated datasets)
  • Intends to implement contributor recognition system that includes people outside the traditional author list (e.g. patients and other stakeholders)
Drawbacks:
  • Not in pubmed (yet)
  • No official impact factor (yet)
  • Articles written in wikimarkup (drawback or benefit depending on your opinion of VisualEditor for newcomers)
I suspect that things like turnaround time and handling of large supplementary datasets are probably similar between WikiJMed and F1000 for original research articles. We've not had call to use it yet, though may be publishing the first minor update to an article in WikiJSci soon as a test case. Also pinging Jacknunn as knowledgeable on research involvement and engagement. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
That’s very helpful, thanks. I’m certain that the SVAI wouldn’t allow anyone to publish a patient’s raw omics datasets or medical records; while it’s technically open source (for the purpose of circumventing HIPAA restrictions that preclude collaborative research involving a patient’s medical data), their patients’ omics data and medical records are actually siloed in their cloud and they limit data access to researchers whom they’ve vetted and participants at their hackathons. Privacy isn’t actually why they do that; rather, it’s done to prevent identity theft (medical records contain a lot of sensitive non-medical data too). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Still pending. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health

Given this mid importance articles medical and culture/society/psychology scope, would greatly appreciate any further comments at its peer review. I've worked on it a lot and got it to GA, User:Doc James and User:Casliber have given invaluable comments so far. I'm aiming for a Wikijournal submission and FA status towards the end of the year.

Peer review here! --[E.3][chat2][me]

the article is well written, GA should be enough forWikipedia:WikiJournal_article_nominations...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

PMID/PMC issues fixed

For those of you making use of automated tools like User:Citation bot and the ref toolbar, the technical issues with the NIH databases have been resolved (see T226088) and these tools should work again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Wonderful to hear. It being broken was really annoying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Physical examination and General medical examination

Auscultation of a man

The article general medical examination is a duplicate of physical examination, although it contains some good material that should be incorporated into the latter article. I'm proposing to merge the two pages. Please share your thoughts at the talk page. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Resolved

Boraas, Alan (September 2, 2006). "Hometown kid an Internet revolutionary". Anchorage Daily News.

References

I am unable to find a free copy of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The URL indicates that it's an Opinion piece, and the title indicates that it's about a BLP. Does this have anything to do with a medicine-related article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, I found it in the wayback machine.[20] Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
On my computer that site does not work. I will try later. QuackGuru (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I was able to read it. QuackGuru (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Marketing of electronic cigarettes

See Talk:Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes#Proposal_to_redirect. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safer_than_tobacco_claim. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system

See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Proposed_rename_of_article.

Most of the RfCs have expired or are close to expiring. If anyone is still interested they can comment. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about a photograph depicting an intersex person

There is a discussion at Talk:Main Page#Graphic but educational image of intersex person on main page? about the publication, on the Main Page, of a photograph depicting an intersex person. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Commented. Bondegezou (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, the question is whether editors choose to have the Wikipedia:Picture of the day (i.e., not the thumbnail for a Featured Article) on Intersex Awareness Day (which is in October 2019) be an 1860 photograph of an intersex person's pelvic region. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Authoritative sources for Toilet training

Working on this article, and as you may expect, there is just a bottomless pit of faddish parenting books that I'm trying to avoid at all costs. I'm currently using the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society as authorities on specific techniques. I'd like to have other recommendations by similar national/multi-national professional organizations, but I'm not sure where to look. Ideas? GMGtalk 16:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There's this from the NHS in the UK. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, Good for you for working on a long-neglected and important article. I'd look at college/university-level textbooks on Early Childhood Education. Some examples of titles are here. Also, the WP:WikiProject Parenting talk page might be a good place to ask about sources. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Urolagnia talk page.

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Urolagnia#Survey. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


Defining/relaying the concept of "woman" at the Woman article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Woman#Proposed edits to lede. A permalink for it is here. The topic concerns this project due to the biological and health aspects, such as sex differences in medicine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A related RfC has commenced: Talk:Woman#RfC: Article lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_124&oldid=1045694959"