Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 168

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165Archive 166Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170→Archive 172

Hi all, I just stumbled upon International Classification of Headache Disorders which reprints the named classification system's hierarchy, but not the actual diagnostic criteria for each condition. My assumption is that this verbatim copy/paste violates the International Headache Society's copyright and should be removed from that article, but I figured I'd check-in here for others' thoughts. I recall a past discussion on the larger ICD codes (this discussion, I think), but I didn't follow the aftermath of that to see if there was pushback on the subsequent AfD(s). For reference, the relevant copyright declaration for ICHD is here: "...may be reproduced freely for scientific, educational or clinical uses by institutions, societies or individuals. Otherwise, copyright belongs exclusively to the International Headache Society. Reproduction of any part or parts in any manner for commercial uses requires the Society’s permission, which will be granted on payment of a fee." so clearly not compliant with our license. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Simple names of phrases themselves cannot be protected by copyright ([1]). Also, there is no creative content, such as description of diseases in the list. But some of the entities might be considered to be more than just simple names or phrases (like with "precursors of migraine" which are "commonly"), I cannot judge here. Also, the arrangement of the data might be protected by copyright if it is not just simple sorting and uses some creative criteria (see WP:CILA for details). For example, ICD-11 is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO license ([2]). You'd better ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or report the problem to the Wikipedia:Copyright problems. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, doesn't the list violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY since it doesn't have any additional information? D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
If the absence of additional information made it be a telephone directory, then we'd have to delete a lot of our lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Time for some pedantry, but fair use can be quite broad - so I'm not sure this would be violating. I think the that came up were with a material getting reused in so many places to violating fair use, and the fact that wikipedia was getting complained at by some lawyers (though this may have been related to another standard). Talpedia 01:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Not eating

The redirect Not eating, which currently targets Fasting, has been nominated at RfD. While this is not solely a medical issue, it's one that does have medical relevance. Please leave any thoughts you have at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 10#Not eating. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Dorsal nexus

The article Dorsal nexus is an orphan for ten years now. No article refers to it. This means something is seriously wrong. Could someone please have a look at it? Should it be part of the template on cerebral cortex? Thanks! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

an editor has fixed the issue[3], thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Atelectasis claim

Is this(Atelectasis develops in 75-90% of people undergoing general anesthesia for a surgical procedure.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lumb |first1=Andrew B |title=Nunn's Applied Respiratory Physiology |date=2017 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=9780702062940 |pages=289 |edition=Eight edition}}</ref>) plausible? I cannot check as I do not have access to the source. Edit is the only contribution by the user. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Duggan, Michelle; Kavanagh, Brian; Warltier, David (1 April 2005). "Pulmonary Atelectasis". Anesthesiology. 102 (4): 838–854. doi:10.1097/00000542-200504000-00021. Retrieved 7 October 2023....Atelectasis occurs in almost all patients undergoing general anesthesia
Grott, Kelly; Chauhan, Shaylika; Dunlap, Julie D. (2023). "Atelectasis". StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing....The incidence of atelectasis in patient's undergoing general anesthesia is 90%

the actual book page indicated (pg 289) is difficult to get, however it is on page 298--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The cited source says "Atelectasis occus in between 75% and 90% of healthy individuals having general anaesthesia with muscle paralysis."  The end of that paragraph is perhaps important:  "The percentage of atelectasis during anaesthesia recorded in this way seems small...equates to around 10% of lung tissue."
From a practical perspective, the lungs are underinflated, but only by ~10%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, a 10% underinflation seems quite plausible, but I would not have thought it sufficient to class as atelectasis. Then again, it is a bit outside my field of expertise. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Verdict on AI Translations?

I know that some wikipedias prohibit automatic translations, but what is the policy on using AI tools like DeepL and even ChatGPT to start a translation?

I had to write something in English and French a few days ago. I wrote it in English first, but then I put it into ChatGPT to translate it into French. When I went in to review the output, it looked better than anything I could have come up with. It even translated some very technical terms and translated the acronyms where possible. I've looked around on Reddit and people there seem to agree that it even accurately translates colloquial and slang terms.

So, could I use ChatGPT to translate articles and then do a manual review to ensure accuracy? IrateSpecialist (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia. I use Google Translate to speed up translations of my texts into English, and it uses neural networks, too (see Google Neural Machine Translation). Also, according to the laws of my country, copyrights of works created using assistant software tool belong to the author. So, you probably need to check the laws of your country, too. D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Large language models, which has been proposed as a policy, although a quick glance at the RFC suggests that it's not going to be approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
It's about content generation rather than content transformation. Anyway, this project is not an appropriate place for such a discussion. What is the most relevant forum to move this topic to? D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I put this topic in WikiProject Medicine because I contribute to WikiProject Med Translation. Maybe move the discussion there then? Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force How do I do that? IrateSpecialist (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
It is related to copyright and laws. Translators might not know all about those legal topics. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Basically a person who publishes content on Wikipedia is responsible for that content, its accuracy, and compliance with any relevant laws. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we missing an article on vector-borne diseases?

I am surprised we don't have an article on vector-borne diseases (VBD) yet. For now, I've created one that is a redirect to disease vector. I don't think this is sufficient though. We do have an article on waterborne diseases. Or perhaps it exists but under a different name that I haven't found yet?

I am coming to this topic because I am currently improving content about climate change impacts on health, e.g. climate change and infectious diseases. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report has a chapter on this (see here) and this chapter mentions vector-borne diseases (or VBD) 33 times. Mainly because climate change will make some of those diseases more common in areas where they were not before. In a nutshell, those "tropical" diseases are moving further North and South and up the mountains... Maybe those "groupings of diseases" articles are not so satisfying to work on (the overarching article infection is also only C class (1400 pageviews per day)). Anyone interested to help with this effort? EMsmile (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Simufilam, Cassava Sciences, and Lindsay Burns

Long time coming. Charles Piller, Science report here, and also covered by The Wall Street Journal. This needs to be worked in at Simufilam, Cassava Sciences and Lindsay Burns, who is also implicated by the sources. Thank you to all the editors who have stayed on top of this for years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Peer review of Cataract surgery

The article has been up for peer review for a couple of months and has not attracted any comments. If anyone from this project would like to take a look in whatever detail suits them and leave any relevant comments, please go ahead. I will be nominating for FA soon and any work that can be done sooner may not have to be done later. Mainly looking for anything that has been left out that should be there. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate the information about history and the practice in developing countries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Prolonged Field Care

The draft page for PFC could use some expert input from prehospital, nursing and military medics. Hopefully once it’s published it can attract more editors to improve it further. TheMouseMen (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you for posting (I do NPP so I left a note[4]) -Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome

A new syndrome is splashing in the media, Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome. It seems to be legit: Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Health: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association, but I'm not sure how to best create the article. I am not even sure about the dashes vs hyphens thing. If anybody wants to make a stub, that's be great. Abductive (reasoning) 06:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

yes it should have an article (stub) as its getting more attention ...non-profit (founded 1971)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Done, but MOS required use of endashes in the title: Cardiovascular–kidney–metabolic syndrome. Only 2 sentences. Please check I've not too closely paraphrased the definition given on page 4 of the release. Little pob (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Improving Medical Articles in Malay on Wikipedia

Hi, do any of you know anyone who edits in Malay (preferably medical topics)? I have a group who is interested in getting involved and improving articles and it would be great to connect them with a few people who are already editing.

Thanks!

JenOttawa (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@JenOttawa, is this ms.wikipedia.org? (There are several languages whose English monikers are very similar.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @WhatamIdoing thanks for the quick reply. I believe that ms is the correct language. I am verifying. JenOttawa (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Here's how I'd go about finding people at the smaller wikis. If it's a different wiki, then you can repeat my process there.
  • Check Special:ListAdmins for familiar names and/or people who have put a Babel box on their userpage that indicates they speak English (or another language you can write in). Admins can generally be counted on to know the rules for their local wiki, and also to be watching each other's talk pages, so if you leave a note for one of the 15 admins, then some of the others will likely see it as well.
  • Look at Special:ActiveUsers for familiar names and/or people who make a lot of edits. This wiki ("mswiki") has about 600 editors making at least one (1) in any given month. Assume that a third of them make a couple of edits and a few percent make a lot of edits. In this case, there are about 20 editors who made 100+ edits during the last month. Those people are the ones you would want to talk to.
  • Check this history for a handful of "big" articles and see if there are any active editors listed there. For example, Fandi89 translated a COVID-19 article.
  • They have a WikiProject Medicine (w:ms:Wikipedia:WikiProjek Perubatan; see d:Q4099686 for the complete list), but there are no comments on the talk page. w:ms:Wikipedia:WikiProjek Perubatan/Ahli lists the six members, four of whom – WAqil, Hakimi97, Wiki Farazi and CyberTroopers – are active editors.
At the smaller wikis, communication mostly happens on User_talk: pages. But if you want a central forum, then w:ms:Wikipedia:Kedai Kopi (cadangan) ("Village pump (proposals)") gets the most discussion, and w:ms:Wikipedia:Kedai Kopi (lain-lain) ("Village pump (miscellaneous)") is where official announcements get dumped.
If this group mostly wants to translate articles, then there may still be useful information on pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/About or Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/Integration guides/Integration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
These are excellent tips. Thank you for taking the time to share them.JenOttawa (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope that the group works out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Picked up from the hot articles list that Asperger syndrome is currently under going a rewrite. Might need some WP:MED input (the lead is off and the rest is not within my competency). Thanks, Little pob (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the goal of the re-write? Asperger's officially stopped existing (though it's still a personal identity for some people) some years ago, but we haven't re-written the article to reflect this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
It looks to be turning in to quite a mess, and best I can tell, Ruedi33a has never posted to the talk page. It would be good to hear from them as to their understanding of WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS and WP:LEAD, as starters. The article was dated, but a dated article may be preferred to what is there now, and Ruedi33a's work may be heading towards a revert if they don't seek more collaboration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I saw the message "This article needs to be updated. The reason given is: some parts of the article do not accurately reflect either the new DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria, February 2022)" and started my standard approach: migrate every citation to sfn and check whether it still exists, can it be replaced or is outdated (DSM-4 or ICD-10). You are the first to contact me, so let us start talking. For me, the scientific journey of "Asperger syndrome" has come to an end and the article I found was a mess in terms of citations and being up-to-date. What rules exist for articles about "dead" diagnoses?Ruedi33a (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Ruedi33a, let's start with the simple things; as Little pob mentions, the lead is quite off, and I suggest that the older version should be restored and converted to past tense where necessary. From there, updating and switching to past tense where applicable in the body would be the next step. Then, it is usually helpful to re-write the lead last, as leads are summaries of the body. And finally, your edits are introducing a very odd structure with respect to the medical content guidelines, and I am hoping that you understand sourcing guidelines for medical content. Whether the condition still exists as a separate diagnosis doesn't change any of what needs to be done, other than it affects present vs. past tense, and no special "rules" exist or apply to past tense diagnoses as far as I know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
PS, you should never migrate to a different citation style without gaining consensus; for example, in this case, Asperger syndrome was long a featured article, so has a well-established citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ruedi33a thank you for reverting your changes, apologies for not dropping a note on your talk that was bringing here for med editors input. Little pob (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Easy access to journal full texts

I've created some redirects for a browser add-on which convert journals URLs/DOIs to the full texts available through The Wikipedia Library. I thought it might be of use to some of you. SmartSE (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you! Zotero has a similar function (though mine often malfunctions). Will give yours a try this evening; seems like a great time saver. Ajpolino (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I've put the regex rules on github here which hopefully makes it easier to import. SmartSE (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Image help needed at Parkinson's

See Talk:Parkinson's disease#Old Shaky Dude Picture SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

In particular, we are looking for opinions whether editors think this image -- File:New Parkinson disease representation.jpg -- could be useful in the article. I suspect as an entire image, it is too complex/detailed to fit into a wikipedia article. But it could be cropped and adjusted and some/all of the components used either in the lead image or in other images. The question is whether editors here think it is good for that, as there is like to be some work necessary to get it with a free licence (despite being uploaded to Commons, it probably would be deleted with clear permission from the creator). -- 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Penile Cancer in Circumcision lead

On the circumcision article, many users were divided on whether or not to describe penile cancer as “rare” (or “relatively rare”) in the lead. A collapsible footnote which read “Penile cancer is a rare disease in the developed world, but much more prevalent in the developing world” ended up being the WP:EDITCON compromise we settled on, until it was recently reverted by a user. Please review these discussions:1 & 2, and advise on how we could move forward. Prcc27 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the rights and wrongs, this summary needs a touch more context. Prcc27 added the "compromise" boldly in this edit [5] which claims nobody responded in support or in opposition of my compromise(see following dummy edit for wording correction). Yet someone had opposed the compromise [6]. So this bold edit cannot be said to have enjoyed WP:EDITCON. Rather, it appears that, tucked away in a footnote, no one noticed it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. The wider context is that although it's true penile cancer is rare in the developed world (though not extremely rare like say heart cancer), anti-circumcision activists don't like mentioning that circumcision reduces penile cancer risk, so always seem to want to have some wording to ensure nobody thinks this risk reduction is a good reason to get circumcised. Hence the kerfuffle. In any event, the rareness (in the West) of penile cancer is an attribute of penile cancer and not of circumcision, so trying to add adjectives into the lede to 'steer' POV seems unwise. We can go into the weeds in the article body, if there is sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. It seems like there is a sneaky attempt to imply that circumcision might have some causative effect on penile cancer, which is a ridiculous idea. At the same time, there is likewise an attempt to bury the fact that circumcision has a preventive effect on penile cancer, regardless of the rarity of such cancer. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@Valjean: Adding “rare” or “relatively rare” does not bury the information about circumcision’s preventive effect on penile cancer. What do you think the wording should be? Prcc27 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@Valjean, the "idea", as I heard it more than a decade ago, was that circumcision reduced HIV and HPV infections, both of which appear to be causative agents for penile cancer. The rebuttal, if memory serves, was to claim that it was a case of correlation rather than causation (i.e., that baby boys who were circumcised for religious reasons tended to grow up into men with a smaller number of lifetime sex partners and therefore a smaller number of sexually transmitted infections). I've no idea what the current research says, but it's a biologically plausible mechanism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I can imagine that a comparison between Israel, where it's mostly Jews and for religious reasons, and America, where it's a custom adopted by Jews and non-Jews, would show a difference if that hypothesis had any merit. I'm pretty sure this has all been the subject of analysis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
There's quite a lot of detail in the (well-sourced) content at Circumcision#Cancers. Bon courage (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@Sirfurboy: Not entirely true. Bon Courage expressed opposition to a collapsible footnote with the “rare” or “relatively rare” wording in the lead. I then asked him if he would support a footnote without “rare” or “relatively rare” being in the lead. When he did not make an objection, I went ahead with my BOLD edit, and unchallenged, I assumed we had consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
What we have now is a simple, well-sourced summary. You have not given any rationale for your desire to say that penile cancer is rare, add footnotes about that, or whatever else you're proposing. WHY do you want to do this? Please explain. Bon courage (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
It is WP:UNDUE as is in the lead. We should not insinuate that penile cancer prevention is on the same level as HIV and UTI prevention. We don’t list every single possible circumcision complication in the lead, we do not need to mention every single possible circumcision benefit in the lead either. But if we do mention penile cancer, it is worth clarifying that it is a rare disease. Prcc27 (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a rare disease in high-income Western countries, but it constitutes up to 10% of malignancies in men in some African, Asian and South American regions.[7] I know American exceptionalism is all the rage on Wikipedia, but people in other countries should matter too. We have a big section on this in the article, so a sentence in the lede if WP:DUE. The current wording is factual and "insinuates" nothing. As we say in the article, there is a debate about the merits of circumcision for penile cancer prophylaxis. You have already said your personal POV is that it is not merited. Trying to get that POV into the lede in a problem. Bon courage (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
“Relatively rare” would be a concise summation of the nuances in the body paragraphs about developed world vs. developing world. We don’t want to give undue weight to America, but the same should go for giving undue weight to African, Asian, and South American regions. Prcc27 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
"Relatively rare" is just unhelpfully vague (relative to what?). I think we're done here and I won't be responding further unless some new sourcing or consideration lands. Bon courage (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Relative to what region of the world you are in. The body explains it further; a collapsible footnote, which you oppose, would also explain what it means. You do not have to participate, that is your choice. But the discussion will continue regardless. Prcc27 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at List of continents and continental subregions by population, Asia + Africa + South America = 83% of the people in the world. I don't think it's possible for us to give undue weight to 83% of the people in the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at worldwide stats for men, penile cancer is the 30th most common cancer site, which means it a little less common than Hodgkin lymphoma and Gallbladder and a little more common than cancer of the Salivary glands and Kaposi sarcoma.
doi:10.3322/caac.21660 indicates that it is somewhat less deadly than average (for comparison, breast cancer is less deadly than average, lung cancer is more deadly than average, and colon cancer is pretty close to average). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Per the source: “it constitutes up to 10% of malignancies in men in some African, Asian and South American regions”, not all. Prcc27 (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The 30th most common cancer worldwide is still a big deal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Nobody said penile is no big deal.. But let’s not use original research to argue whether it is a “big (enough) deal” or not. Do the sources call penile cancer a rare disease or a common disease? Well, the source we are currently using in the lead mentions that it is a rare disease in the very first sentence of the abstract. Prcc27 (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
(Point of information: what that abstract - FWIW - actually says (my emphases) is

a rare cancer with orphan disease designation and a prevalence of 0.1-1 per 100,000 men in high-income countries, but it constitutes up to 10% of malignancies in men in some African, Asian and South American regions.

) Bon courage (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Yup, relatively rare. Prcc27 (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Common in some places and rare in others is not "relatively rare". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
“Its prevalence is relatively rare”. Prcc27 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Please review requested drug page (sargramostim) edit

I just submitted 2 edit requests for the sargramostim wiki page via Wiki talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sargramostim#Remove_paragraph_that_contains_benzyl_alcohol_formulation._No_longer_on_market.

So that these edit requests aren't lost/very delayed, the Wiki Live chat suggested I post a review request here the WikiProject Medicine.

Thank you 97.81.195.108 (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Fluoride toxicity: newer study MEDRS?

Is the ref added by User:Ajisdragon sufficient to support the substantive change of meaning in this edit? DMacks (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a review in a good journal (see the Scopus rankings). I think that not providing any sort of Effect size is a problem for comprehension, but having skimmed most of the source, I don't really see that we can say. He's got numbers showing that there's probably some dose-dependent effect, but he doesn't even try to produce a simple statement like "2.0 mg/L costs five IQ points" (the US recommends 0.7 mg/L). I assume that's because the data simply isn't strong enough to support any simple conclusions.
Also, if you haven't had your daily dose of internet outrage yet, he hints that pregnant women shouldn't drink tea (which also contains fluoride, apparently). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah we're probably in WP:ECREE territory, though I am surprised the paper hasn't created more ripples. Last time I checked the NHS hadn't issued a warning for pregnant women to stop drinking tea! Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's an extraordinary claim, but I'm not sure that stating it as a certainty is DUE. I find seven recent-ish review articles (including the cited one) in MEDLINE-indexed journals at PubMed. PMID 36639015 complains about the confounding factors while agreeing that the existing studies indicate an IQ effect. PMID 37120936 found no correlation in "non-endemic fluorosis areas" and says that Further research is needed for high-fluoride areas. None of them say that fluoride is harmless or has no potential for neurodevelopmental harm. The closest we get to the conventional belief is that some of them suggest (but can't prove) that lower levels might not have a clinically significant effect.
The one I'd particularly recommend to Wikipedia editors is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922476/, subtitled "when new evidence doesn't conform with existing beliefs". This is worth at least a skim even if you have no interest in the specific subject area. The tendency to stick with "what we know that ain't so" is not a new problem. Richard Feynman told stories about this particular cognitive bias in the last century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Those studies, especially from China, are not that trustworthy. They don't account for existing iodine deficiency which definetly has some impact on the IQ. --Julius Senegal (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Referencing Near sightedness

Can I use the following references for the article near sightedness


Healthline.com and British Journal of ophthalmology? Tesleemah (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

the second reference yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
See WP:HEALTHLINE for why the first is blacklisted. Little pob (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Further feedback requested in discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Evolocumab § Deaths covered up that could use additional input. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Androgen backdoor pathway

For your attention. In German wikipedia the article Androgen backdoor pathway has been deleted due to WP:OR. User Maxim Masiutin tried to push "his" research in wikipedia, helpful hints (for instance that this is a theory which needs secondary sources) have been ignored. In the end, the user has been blocked as well.

I am not familiar with that matter but maybe some of you is and can have a look on that. Cheers, --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Polymethylsiloxane polyhydrate

Could you please have a look at the categorization of this article? Shall the categories before Special:Diff/1117740465 reinstated? Leyo 20:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably. Three of the four "new" categories don't exist, and the other says it's a Medical device instead of a drug/substance. I've made the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. The three red-linked categories have been removed in the following edit. --Leyo 20:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sports

I wrote Early sports specialization, which ended up with a surprising number of red links. If you're interested in kids, sports, or orthopedics, please take a look. It could be that some of these just need a redirect. (Gymnasts' wrist might need to be a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page; I've heard that there are at least six different conditions with that name.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Rfc - Richard D. Gill and Kate Shemirani

There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill#Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance of relevance to this project. Structuralists (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Account blocked, RFC closed, nothing to see here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Blood-saliva barrier

Can you please give your opinion at Talk:Blood-saliva_barrier on whether a new article is needed for blood-saliva barrier (BSB)? Thank you in advance! --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tom (LT), do you have an interest in this anatomy-related subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Maxim Masiutin and @WhatamIdoing for your pings. Great work Maxim on creating and citing this article. From my point of view it does meet anatomical notability guidelines and thankfully Maxim has also provided lots of citations within the article to justify this (great job!). I can't say this particular subject piques my interest but I do want to express thanks to the Maxim for creating, translating and expanding it. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

New stub

Just created this neoplasm stub: Intra-ampullary papillary–tubular neoplasm. Probably won't do any more work on it, but happy to receive feedback. Little pob (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed it, looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Peter Breggin

There have been some recent extensive edits by new editors on this biography. Can someone with psychiatry expertise review it? 05:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Title request: what's a country-neutral term for dietary intake reference levels?

Countries tend to all have their own versions of a Reference Daily Intake and Daily Value for food labels and general recommendations. Existing articles for things that are similar to, but are not DV and RDI, include Acceptable daily intake (≈UL), Dietary Reference Values, Guideline Daily Amount, and Reference Intake.

But even with all these articles we fail to cover a large chunk of the world's population: what about the "NRV" used by AU and NZ, the separate "NRV" used by China, the Indian (ICMR) RDA, or the Korean and Japanese "RDIs"? It just seems less than practical to create an article for every large-enough country's nutritional recommendations, especially when they all start with largely similar principles and get similar conclusions.

We should get an article that talks about and lists these things in general. But what do we call it? Artoria2e5 🌉 00:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe human nutrient requirements? I'm imagining a page that says something like "Humans have both minimum and maximum nutrient requirements. Getting enough calories, protein, vitamins and other nutrients prevents some illnesses, such as vitamin deficiencies. In other cases, these values are set to prevent overconsumption of potentially harmful additives, such as food dyes. Different countries have different legal standards."
Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing sounds good. Now I'm going to look for some journal article that compares at least three of these things... Artoria2e5 🌉 05:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Eye, eye

I've created Eye transplantation from a redirect, but as I am not well versed in medical topics, I would apprecitate more eyes upon it. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@No Swan So Fine, you've done a great job getting started there, and I really appreciate the work Little pob has done. Congratulations on your work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Need help with Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia - review needed

Could you please review the anatomy section of the article on paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, particularly the description of the ECG image? I added this section as a whole, although I'm not a cardiologist. Thank you! I also edited the paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia in many other places. If you could, please then review the whole article. Thank you in advance! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Iztwoz, can you please help review the section and the image caption in this section? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Have made a few edits but I am no expert. Best Iztwoz (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Why did you remove the following explanation "Lead II of electrocardiogram shows 3 rapid heartbeats, supraventricualar extrasistoles due to atrioventricular nodal reentry, shown as red, demonstraining unexplained onset and stop of the episode in paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia among normal heart rhythm shown as blue"?
Your edit summary tells "minor ce", but it does not explain why removing this explanation is to be removed? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
All I removed was "Lead II" which is not understandable to a general reader.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
There were already "Lead" mentioned in another image in this reference. I hope that with a hyperlink it will be easier to understand when "Lead" has a wikilink, OK? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I put wikilink to Lead II so now it would be easier to understand the term by clicking the wikilink Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Per your request, I am more than happy to take a look at this section - cheers.
Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)



Cardiac anatomy is not something I know much about. Could someone please take a look and then leave a note here, so we know that this got handled? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review needed

Asto77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has too many contribs for me to review, but could use some guidance on WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

At least in some cases, the user has cited (mini) reviews. --Leyo 14:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, will try to do better, or not at all. Sometimes I say "One study found..." but I guess that's not acceptable.Asto77 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, @Asto77. I appreciate your efforts to help.
One of the problems with "One study found..." is that we've had people (not you – in the past) who pick very unusual studies as the "one study" to mention. It will just "accidentally" happen to be the one study that aligns with their beliefs, supports the product they're selling, agrees with the decision they want their relative to make, etc. Sometimes the results of an individual study really are interesting (here's one example of an individual study being famously wrong, and thereby screwing up researchers for years afterwards), but for the most part, and unless you're dealing with an incredibly rare disease, we do try to avoid those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
yep. I want wiki content to be leading edge, helping discovery. but sadly understand the wiki rules say need to wait for reviews etc . so wiki will always be years behind the thought leadership area. thanks. Asto77 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Molecular biology / genetics review needed

Could you please review from the point of view of Molecular biology / genetics specialist the following texts:

Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Category discussion

Editors in this project may perhaps be interested in Category talk:Fasting advocates#Discussion about this category. It would be helpful to get input from editors who are familiar with the topic of fasting and related health implications. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC relevant to this WikiProject

Hello! I'm posting here to notify this WikiProject that an RFC that may be relevant to it has started regarding the definition of sex. Loki (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Commented again. The source that covers sex phenotype: [8]. D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Massive EL changes

I've asked Judkessler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on their talk to stop making rapid, mass changes to External links. They haven't stopped, and all may need checking. I only got the Featured articles or those that hit my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Would you like me to open back the 'featured article' I modified to restore the links which were modified?
Judkessler (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC).
Moving this up to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Judkessler (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC).
I don't think we'll get a useful discussion about the WHO pages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, so let's talk about it here. The pages in question are, e.g., https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/chlamydia for Chlamydia#External links.
I wonder first of all whether we should treat them like eMedicine, which we put in Template:Medical resources, like this:
There's no inherent reason why the bit that says "eMedicine: med/340" couldn't say "WHO: fact sheet" as well. What do you all think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way to specify WHO fact sheet in a Wikidata entity? I can't find any suitable property. D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@D6194c-1cc, I don't think that it exists, but I think one could be created. We can ask for help at d:Project:Chat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Source retraction

(Cross-posted from Talk:Amoxicillin#Source retraction). Can someone with some topic area knowledge assess whether a sentence in Amoxicillin § Respiratory infections needs to be modified due to the retraction of a source it cites? I tried, but I'm not smart enough. Folly Mox (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

There was more important problem in that section: [9], [10]. For about 6 years ambiguous medical claim has been made by a primary source. D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mathematical modelling of infectious diseases#Requested move 30 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mathematical modelling of infectious diseases#Requested move 30 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

closed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Photo season

https://www.wikisciencecompetition.org/contest/ has started. Please join, and encourage your friends to join. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Mid level page recommended for deletion

I have recommended the mid-level practitioner page for deletion. Please join the conversation. 172.56.209.24 (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Suggestions" and "appearances" not science?

An editor has suggested a post here to ascertain the validity or worthiness of a citation to a meta-analysis which has no firm conclusion but uses the above terms.Talk:Foreskin#This sentence needs to be reworded or removed.

While we have cited it only as saying it 'suggests', the weight given to it is considered undue and possibly trivial by some. Any input would be welcome. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thelisteninghand, if a scientific review article writes something like "This suggests that..." or "It appears that...", they are usually trying to tell you that this is something:
  • "Many researchers in this field currently believe..." (a statement about the strength of scientific consensus) and
  • "It is not absolutely proven yet" (a statement about the current levels of evidence).
WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, it’s WP:UNDUE trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I want to add that it's medically trivial in that Meissner's corpuscles are but a part of the innervation. All the other nerve endings are omitted from the study/meta-analysis so the 'suggestion' it makes is just about worthless. It's like saying a car runs on gas, if it breaks down it's probably out of gas. It currently bears great weight because the cite concludes the section. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
That you personally dislike a source's methodology isn't really relevant. MrOllie (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The other nerve endings don't seem as relevant to me (nor apparently to the authors of that reliable source), but if you can find a source that has information on the detection of sustained pressure, or skin stretching, or vibration, then that could be added, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not trivia. It's highly relevant if the article is going to talk about nerves - which it does in the preceding paragraph. MrOllie (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, we're talking about this source

which contains this text:

In a histological study of eight glabrous (hairless) skin locations, Meissner’s index (number of Meissner’s cells divided by number of epidermal ridges) was highest in the finger tip (0.96) and lowest in the prepuce (0.28), as was the size of the Meissner’s corpuscles in each part of the body: 120–260 × 64–84 μm for finger tip compared with 66–84 × 38–52 μm for the prepuce [45]. The latter study concluded that the prepuce is the least sensitive glabrous tissue of the body.

This is relevant biomedical knowledge in a WP:MEDRS source. It is not "suggestion" or "trivia". We don't exclude content just because it doesn't accord an anti-circumcision agenda. Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a review article in a decent journal. I would still encourage editors to focus accurately representing the main conclusions of the article, rather than pulling individual numbers out of the middle.
If we decide to include this information, it may help to explain it in simpler words. For example, "The foreskin contains fewer and smaller Meissner's corpuscles (the type of mechanoreceptor nerve cell that senses light touch) than other hairless body parts, such as the fingertip." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I might be able to agree to a rewording. The current form makes the reader wonder why on earth Wikipedia compares the penis to the fingers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
It's because it's what the source says. Your 'agreement' is not required to include relevant material from the WP:BESTSOURCES in Wikipedia articles. Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Consensus (which is fundamentally agreement) is the goal of our discussions, and it's always good news for the project when an editor in a difficult dispute finds a general idea they can agree to support.
This is a difficult area to work in, because editors are often working from misconceptions instead of facts. I appreciate the folks who are willing to stick with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Student editing, Idaho

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Idaho State University/LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research (Fall 2023)

For reviews. @Brianda (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed): could you please remind this class that schizophrenia is a featured article, so that they will avoid editing there, as per past recommendations ? They also don't seem to have flagged the talk pages of articles they will be editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @SandyGeorgia. I left them a message. It looks like student has already made an edit to Psychotic depression (and been reverted, correctly). Looking at the timeline of the course, I suspect that most of the students in the class has made the edits they're going to make. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

More eyes on ME/CFS?

I'm very slowly trying to bring chronic fatigue syndrome to GA level. The literature is quite messy and at times contradictory. I was wondering if some more people could watch the article, to discuss the more tricky parts of the article.

At the moment, we're discussing the structure of the management and treatment sections, which could use more eyes. Talk:chronic fatigue syndrome#Resplitting treatment from management. Thanks! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've been keeping half an eye on this and thinking encouraging thoughts! A quick look at the current state of the article shows an awful lot of old sourcing which should be trimmed/updated if this is going to GA. I notice also a lot of emphasis given to PMID:30305916, which is not a great source. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
It's a review article from a decent journal.[11] What makes you think that it's not a great source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
The lack of MEDLINE indexing. Bon courage (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Restricting the search to MEDLINE-indexed journals (which is not a requirement in MEDRS), I find nine review articles in the last five years. This one says that GET helps some and hurts others. This one complains about NICE's process (which resulted in discouraging GET). This one is the same thing, except in Danish. This one sort of supports GET, saying that people doing GET are less likely to report getting much worse but more likely to drop out of trials (but maybe because they got much worse?). The next in the list is about the cost-effectiveness. This one basically agrees with the one you dislike: GET is oversold. This one is a minority POV (ME ≠ CF ≠ CFS – the idea that it might be several conditions is common enough [e.g., mitochondrial vs autoimmune], but this isn't it) and can be ignored. This one says the GET trials are poor. [ht The last] is more directly useful for the fact that patients object to the idea that their behavior has anything to do with their health ("many patients reject the notion their illness is perpetuated by dysfunctional...behaviors") than for whether GET is helpful to anyone, and if so, to whom and at what cost. Overall, it's not really different from the review article you think isn't so great. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure. The problem isn't what it says but that there's better sourcing available, some of which is already in the article. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
And since Femke is well versed at working at the FA level, may as well use the highest quality sources now, so the article can progress further up the assessment scale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "highest quality" is a black-and-white thing. For example, is it more important to be MEDLINE indexed, or is it more important to be rated higher in your specific field? The one that says GET is oversold (and specifically, that even those patients who improve after GET almost never improve enough to be able to hold down a job) is MEDLINE indexed but lower ranked; the one Bon courage dislikes is not MEDLINE indexed but is higher ranked. I don't think we can say that either is obviously better than the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, I hadn't seen some of those sources yet. For GET, we have the German IQWiG's HTA as well [12] (they agree with NICE that potential harms of GET are not sufficiently quantified, and do not recommend it). As for FA, I'm likely be too lazy for the source formatting.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Wow, Femke, you never cease to amaze at the challenging articles you take on ! Watchlisting, but can't promise to contribute much ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I had expected it to be not much more difficult than long COVID, but sourcing for some sections is proving very tricky. It's clear where the research money is. This will be a case of going slow for each paragraph, but we'll get there in the end :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

US docs

Just wanted to touch base with some US med school students:

I was under the impression that you technically get your medical license after the year-long postgraduate/internship year plus passing the USMLE 3, which is before (completing) residency. I was also under the impression that it's the license (i.e., not the residency) that makes it legal for you to practice (general) medicine.

If I've got that wrong, please let me know. (It's the 'calling me a Mid-level practitioner is an insult' thing again.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Significant medical error in File:Renal corpuscle-en.svg

The macula densa is in the last portion of the distal straight tubule (thick ascending limb of the loop of Henle) NOT the distal convoluted tubule. See Gonzalez-Vicente, Agustin; Saez, Fara; Monzon, Casandra M.; Asirwatham, Jessica; Garvin, Jeffrey L. (2019). "Thick Ascending Limb Sodium Transport in the Pathogenesis of Hypertension". Physiological Reviews. 99 (1): 235–309. doi:10.1152/physrev.00055.2017. PMC 6335098. PMID 30354966. and "Tubuloglomerular Feedback - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics". I have tried to fix this error in GIMP, however, the kerning gets corrupted and I am unable to fix this significant error. I have reached out to both User:Shypoetess and commons:User:M.Komorniczak, and it appears this error stretches across multiple language projects. Is someone with a good SVG editor able to fix it? Issues like this is why my medical school professors discourage my classmates from using Wikipedia, which I think is a real shame. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Shypoetess hasn't been seen for over a year, unfortunately. @Yanping Nora Soong, I think you will have better luck asking for help at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
That's about short-looped nephrons in the source, see Figure 1 in this source: [13]. Unfortunately, to date I haven't found any illustration of a short-looped nephron with coloured tubules which are detailed enough. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Percy Lavon Julian

Percy Lavon Julian has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 08:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to add user-defined Common edit summaries to Preferences

Editors here might be interested in this proposal that would allow you to quickly choose in Preview mode from among your favorite edit summaries that you pre-define yourself. Feedback at: WP:VPW#Proposal: add user-defined Common edit summaries to Preferences. Mathglot (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Digital media use and mental health

I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeat expansion disorder

I'm considering trying to write a repeat expansion disorder (also known as microsatellite expansion diseases) page. There is an existing Trinucleotide repeat disorder page but this misses about 15 repeat expansion disorders. review paper. A lot of the content would overlap so it's possible that trinucleotide repeat disorders should be a section of a repeat expansion disorder page. It would be good to know what people think of creating a repeat expansion disorder page? Tank (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

pubmed has alot on the subject --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
@TrickyTank, I think this is a good idea. Why don't you postpone the decision about merging up the existing Trinucleotide repeat disorder article until you've seen how yours comes together? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes that sounds like a good idea. I'll put something together in my sandbox. Tank (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Confusion regarding Dysgammaglobulinemia

I'm just going to preface this by saying that I'm not using the talk page because it is innactive and I doubt I will get a response.

I'm currently trying to go through all of the disease stubs and stumbled upon Dysgammaglobulinemia. I'm having a hard time finding consistant information on it. Here's the definitions i've found so far:

Selective deficiency of one or more, but not all, classes of immunoglobulins.[14][15]

Common variable immunodeficiency, also known as dysgammaglobulinemia, is a group of disorders involving both B-cell and T-cell immune function.[16][17]

Immunoglobulin class switch recombination deficiencies (CSR-Ds, which were previously named “dysgammaglobulinemia” and then “hyper-IgM syndromes”) are characterized by elevated serum IgM levels and a considerable decrease in IgG, IgA and IgE.[18]

From what I can gather it's either a synonym for Common variable immunodeficiency or hyper-IgM syndrome or it's a separate disorder. If anyone has any insight that would be helpful. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

[19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
My impression is that "dysgammaglobulinemia" is more a technical term with a fuzzy definition than a medical diagnosis with precise criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm kind of getting that impression as well just based off what someone else responded with. How would I go about making an article for dysgammaglobulinemia considering it's loose definition? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The guideline WP:Set index articles could be what you are looking for. Little pob (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! that is exactly what I'm looking for! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

STI vs STD

I brought this to the talk page of the relevant article but failed to draw much discussion. @Autisticeditor 20—who was pinged there as well but did not respond—has been on a mission to eliminate all mentions of the term "sexually transmitted disease" in favor of "sexually transmitted infection" (the current title of our article on the subject). I can't see the need for such drastic action, and I would imagine it should be treated as we treat other alternative names, provided that they are not biased or misleading (for instance, our article is titled color, but the spelling colour is also acceptable to use as long as there is consistency within an article, and should not be purged from the encyclopedia). However, perhaps there are other users who agree with such actions, so I would love to hear them out. I considered bringing this matter to RfC, but it seems appropriate to begin here. Anonymous 04:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I get it. I've seen a lot of efforts to destigmatize language. I got publicly chastised in a staff meeting (by a yoga instructor, of all people) for saying a patient had a "clean urine STI screen," the adjective clean obviously being judgmental. Sigh. I don't know that we want to remove all accurate but potentially stigmatizing language in every context: diseases are diseases, and not all infections are diseases nor are all diseases infectious. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jclemens: It's probably worth looking through the user's revisions if you want to try and ascertain what uses of "STD" would be better kept. I'm not really an expert in that area, but I would take a stab myself were I more knowledgeable. Anonymous 05:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
As I recall, the idea was that some people think of "a disease" as something that produces symptoms, and HIV (in particular) often spends years in an asymptomatic state, during which time is it more intuitive for most people to think of it as "an infection" than "a disease". STD became less preferred in the 1990s, when HIV was the flagship pathogen.
It's true that disease ≠ infection (e.g., lupus is a disease, but not an infection), but all sexually transmitted diseases are also infections.
I don't think that changing to the STI wording should be considered "drastic action". If this editor thinks this is worth his time to make these changes, then that's okay with me. I don't feel that it would be worth my time to make the changes. I equally don't feel that it would be worth my time to oppose them, nor even to pay much attention to them. It is IMO just not important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: see MOS:VAR. It provides a pretty strong backbone for the point I'm making. (Per the Arb Committee, "when either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.") If STI were better that would be another thing, but as long as neither is explicitly favored, we should retain the existing phrase. Anonymous 06:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
STI is "better" because it is more accurate wrt some medical conditions.
Choosing to use a term that became popular in the 1970s (when they wanted to stop talking about "VD") or a term that became popular in the 1990s (when they were very much concerned about HIV [infection] vs AIDS [disease]) is not necessarily "a style" in the same way that American spelling, DMY date formats, or whether to use citation templates are "a style". We're talking about a single word, not something that affects the article throughout. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Pre-exposure prophylaxis

I've broken the pre-exposure prophylaxis article into two; one for the general concept, and the other for Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention, for the specific treatment now generally known as PrEP. I've created relevant hatnotes and a disambiguation page to prevent reader confusion. I'd appreciate any comments/improvements other editors can provide. — The Anome (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

very well written [20]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Medref template

The {{medref}} template has recently been changed[21] to remove mention of primary sources and it now says

This article needs additional medical references for verification. Please help improve this article by adding appropriate references. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged and removed.

I don't think this is quite right – should we not mention 'biomedical information'? I'm also not sure it's wise not to mention primary sources. Thoughts? Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the change problematic, to the point of rendering the template less than useful .... and it doesn't seem to have been discussed. CactiStaccingCrane could you please explain? Might you self-revert and initiate a talk page discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
No response from anyone, so I reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Computer-aided diagnosis

Primary sources, some uncited, needs broad attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Black box warnings project

break a

I was disturbed to find that some drugs with FDA-mandated Black box warnings have articles that are missing any mention of the box or the risk. It's disturbing to me that someone would create a page and mention minor side effects but leave this out. Looking to drum up interest in a project to programmatically identify and (manually?) remedy all such articles. Anyone? RudolfoMD (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an official list of drugs with black box warnings? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Not reliable, but a starting place: https://pharmafactz.com/list-of-black-box-warnings/
Better ? https://hospitals.vchca.org/images/pharmacy_hca/20200623_BBW.pdf
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Good question. Neither of those sources lists Brincidofovir.
I have made a complete list: https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 (query: https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/#/search/spl-summaries/criteria/343802) using The FDALabel Database. It allows Presence of... specific sections of the prescribing information (e.g., BOXED WARNING) per the main page documentation. It produces a result of >16k labels with boxed warnings. https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/services/spl/summaries/csv/criteria/343802.
Broad strokes: It seems like it would be appropriate to put the relevant info into wikidata and have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_drug#Input_from_Wikidata cause it to be displayed.
RudolfoMD (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
That could be a useful approach. User:Andrawaag, is this Wikidata idea something that User:ProteinBoxBot could handle? One would ideally want both to have the information added to Wikidata and also to have the bot watch for human-involved errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and relaying the idea to @Andrawaag. If we proceed, this way, how is sourcing handled? In each article or in Wikidata?
(Since opening this discussion, someone reverted my fixing the omission of the fact that a drug had a black box warning. That omission is what prompted me opening it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brincidofovir&diff=prev&oldid=1168856210 ) RudolfoMD (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@RudolfoMD, I think that a "both/and" approach to sourcing is better than "either/or". Sources are pretty easy to add in Wikidata. It doesn't look easier, at first glance, but all you do is:
  1. Look for "Add references" to the side of whichever detail you're adding a source for, and click on it;
  2. In the confusing little box, start typing in the kind of source you're adding (e.g.,: "URL", "PubMed", "PubChem", or "ISBN");
  3. Choose the correct item from the list (e.g., "PubChem CID" if you have the official compound id number);
  4. Paste the id number/URL into the next field.
  5. Click "publish" for the item (about 2–3 cm above where you originally clicked on "Add references").
It handles everything else about the citations automatically.
Here, of course, you need to supply a source. I suspect the reason @Sundayclose reverted you is because you added a source in ==External links== instead of in <ref>...</ref>tags. (For the actual purpose of Wikipedia:External links, your link to PubChem should replace the dead URL that's there now, rather than being added after it, and we don't usually put those in citation templates. I'll go fix that now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
NB: I'm proposing a project to programmatically identify and remedy all such articles. Not go through 16,000 drugs, and for those with articles, perform manual steps on each of a significant fraction of them! Maybe this (WT:MED) isn't a good place to connect with folks with the relevant skills.
Idea! I'm thinking a smaller / more feasible project would be to add those of the 16,000 drugs with articles to a category - i.e. Drugs with Black Box warnings, and with the https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/ citations on the category page. User:Andrawaag - any thoughts on this (or the original) idea?
PS This is a good place to establish if it's an uncontroversial bot task; if it is, we could make a WP:BOTREQ - hopefully a good place to connect with folks with the relevant skills. RudolfoMD (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
RudolfoMD, your ping above to Andrawaag will not be received by them because you added it on to an already existing post. See Help:Notifications; for a ping to work, it has to be a new post with a fresh signature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
About the category idea: How would you handle former black boxes? Remove the category, or keep it (because it used to have one)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
It might also be possible to add that information (and a source) as a comment on the US legal status to {{drugbox}}. See Template:Infobox drug/legal status for more information on that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Are most readers in tune to categories? I think the infobox idea might be better ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Page views say that more readers go to cat pages than editors. (I assumed that they were really just being used by editors, and I asked someone at work to pull the numbers for me. I was wrong. The skew isn't as huge as, say, page views for a popular page like Taylor Swift, but some readers do use them.)
It would be possible to do both/and. In fact, the infobox could trigger the category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
This use of "infobox could trigger the category" sounds like a good concept, but it's against WP:TEMPLATECAT. I've been shot down for taking that approach in other topic-areas, and there definitely does not appear to be consensus to overturn or weaken that recommendation. DMacks (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed: that doesn't seem to have stopped its use twice in the infobox template, e.g. {{main other|[[Category:ECHA InfoCard ID from Wikidata|*]]}}. It seems consensus has changed. Wait... They're hidden maintenance categories... RudolfoMD (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Yup, that's a key distinction in the guideline. DMacks (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Would something like that {{main other|[[Category:FDA black box warning from Wikidata|*]]}} be appropriate (likewise a hidden maintenance category)? RudolfoMD (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

break b

Do other competent authorities have similar schemes - if so should they be considered for addition to articles as well?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
EMA has the inverted triangle, drugs under additional monitoring but not really comparable. Was trying to see if these could be found through DrugCentral, but it doesn't look like it's possible, only get the U.S. labels it seems. fiveby(zero) 17:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
PMDA has Yellow Letter / Blue Letter, eg. Diclofenac etalhyaluronate "Shock and anaphylaxis by Joyclu 30mg intra-articular injection" fiveby(zero) 18:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
EMA = UK European Medicines Agency; PMDA = Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency.
It's beginning to sound like this is too much for an infobox, and maybe it could be a template similar to {{Medical condition classification and resources}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Don't let me complicate something that started out as a more straightforward task, just looking for other resources. fiveby(zero) 19:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
We're already listing regulatory approval in several countries; we could change the infobox item from something like:
to:
(Ideally with links under the symbols and citations to support the claim.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I anticipate that
  • US: ℞-only ◼︎
  • EU: Rx-only ▼ would be incomprehensible to a large fraction of users, and
    • US: ℞-only ◼︎⚠️
    • EU: Rx-only ▼⚠️ would be a bit better, but not good... And I agree with fiveby. Success seems more likely if we aim to achieve a small task at scale. At least until someone with bot skills shows interest. (If that's someone already reading or commenting, please speak up; I've not seen anyone say they have any.)
RudolfoMD (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I've got some domain knowledge and could help out with code. I'm a little surprised that there is not an existing bot verifying {{drugbox}}. Looks like CheMoBot by Beetstra and BogBot by Boghog are doing some work, but do not verify against any external compendia. If we go to the trouble of adding a field to the infobox, should probably later add a task to verify the existing fields in passing.
There's also a little ethical issue here. Once we start supplying drug warnings i think it kind of imposes a duty to be accurate and up-to-date.
Should get some feedback from those bot authors already touching the infobox before starting. fiveby(zero) 01:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, after looking at some of the drug articles and thinking about this more, i don't think i want to touch any of those articles, sorry. fiveby(zero) 03:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It would be helpful if you could explain what discoveries led to your hesitance - what hurdle or hurdles your looking at some articles made apparent, especially any surprising ones. (I accept you are free to choose, of course.)
Would it be right to say that the ethical issue you raise is very close to one that exists for those other bots editing drug articles - in that once a botmaster starts supplying drug info arguably it might impose a duty to keep it up-to-date? Or are they thus far all adding info that can't become out-of-date? I doubt that the FDA often removes black box warnings. RudolfoMD (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
As far as hurdles go i think the presentation to the reader would require the most consideration and a few other issues would probably arise. Labels are for a drug product which the consumer has in hand whereas the WP articles are for the drug and in some cases drug combinations. Just technical issues which can be overcome and i think what you suggest would be a doable and fairly simple improvement.
But looking at the drug articles they are listing contraindications, adverse effects, and interactions. They are purporting to provide comprehensive consumer safety information. I'm sure editors are covered by the medical disclaimer, but that is buried in the footer and two clicks away—in my opinion not good enough for the reader. You were disturbed to see the black box warnings missing from articles, i'm leery of attempting to provide drug safety information at all. I would want to have a professional i could trust looking over my shoulder to ensure i was doing things correctly and that it was an actual benefit to the reader vs. simply sending them elsewhere to obtain that information.
I don't see that the other bots are touching anything that would be a safety issue, tho i could be wrong. fiveby(zero) 15:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Glad to see you back at work, RudolfoMD; if you all come to some consensus on this, and can develop a clear algorithm, you're more likely to get attention via a post to Wikipedia:Bot requests. But that shouldn't be initiated without a clear algorithm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
"A clear algorithm" in this case probably means a list of drug articles with the source that supports the claim. Once that information is in hand, it might even be possible to use WP:AWB to do it, especially if the goal is just to put an item in the infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
But, a list of drugs (and their UNII FDA UNII identifier issued by the FDA / Unique Ingredient Identifier) with the source that supports the claim is in my 05:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) comment, above. So what is lacking?
Wikidata
I looked at adding the info to Wikidata. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=Q879952&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns120=1 indicates that no entries use the property Boxed warning (Q879952) yet, right? So what's a good / is there one correct way to add to WikiData info on which drugs have boxed warnings (i.e. FDA-mandated Black Box Warnings)? I just can't grok what statements I should add.  I don't see that binary values are supported (0/1 or No/Yes...). Can someone add the info for one drug, like maybe add Q879952 in a way they think is correct, for, say, acetaminophen? RudolfoMD (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing? Anyone? I guess I can resort to BOLD. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q57055&diff=prev&oldid=1981617113. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
That edit has been reverted.
Of note Q879952 isn't a property. WikiData's property IDs begin with a P rather than a Q. What you're probably going to have to do is request a new property. I've only ever requested one, and it was a long while ago, but try to put the request in a topic area that's as specific as possible. It's been that long, and processes change, that the only further advise I can give is to look at other property proposals and the help:properties pages. Strike as to not confuse/contradict, see Wostr's response below Little pob (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
We're already providing terrible warnings - as noted in the OP! " It's disturbing to me that someone would create a page and mention minor side effects but leave this out. " What I've done so far is a massive improvement (or would be if an admin had the ***** to push it live). Do you dispute that? Seems stunningly, blazingly better. RudolfoMD (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

break c

I've reverted this edit and discussion between me and RudolfoMD is here. As I suggested there, the first step in this situation should be to initiate a discussion in d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine. I also suggested a possible solution: adding boxed warning (Q879952) as a value of a qualifier to legal status (medicine) (P3493) statements like this:

legal status (medicine) (P3493)
Normal rank FDA-approved (Q111972129) edit
has characteristic (P1552) boxed warning (Q879952)
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
+ add value

However, due to Wikidata being much more detailed than Wikipedia (information that fits into one Wikipedia article is often split into multiple Wikidata items), it is not clear to me right now, whether this type of information should be included in the item describing the active substance or in items describing specific pharmaceutical products like Tylenol (Q3245302). So, as I said, this should be discussed in Wikiproject Medicine in Wikidata first. Sadly, such discussion has not been initiated yet. And as a side note: there is no such thing in Wikidata as be bold policy, given the nature of Wikidata, this type of import of data should be carefully considered and discussed in advance. Wostr (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wostr, I like your idea of listing these as qualifiers. Am I correct in thinking that approach would also let us add some details, like noting the dates it was active during?
BTW, after the discussion this week at d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#diseases_and_rare_diseases, I'm not sure that that page really has the activity necessary to be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
FYI, all: I got constructive feedback here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Basic_question._How_do_I_mark_that_a_drug_has_a_en:boxed_warning? and edited accordingly before seeing the last 3 comments here. (This new suggestion from Wostr (which they say they had suggested but is not visible to me in their conversation with me - perhaps the edit failed to save or get served properly) seems reasonable. I don't know why Wostr was ignoring my feedback on the idea of asking on Wikiproject Medicine in Wikidata - which included the point WhatamIdoing made - that the page isn't active enough doesn't have the activity necessary to be useful). IMO the Wikidata:Project_chat# is serving adequately. Wostr, do you object to that forum? To presenting your proposal above there if you prefer it to what Andrew Gray proposed and I want to go with? So, as a side note, I see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Be_bold does exist as a guideline, and my two edits of paracetamol (Q57055) after seeking input were highly consistent with it. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and @Ozzie10aaaa , what was this edit about? Makes it look like I added the medicine sign. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1152801192 RudolfoMD (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I usually add images to interesting posts (like this one ) to hopefully attract more attention (anyway I've removed it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
To "hopefully attract more attention"? Interesting... How, exactly? Whose attention does it target? Via some sort of watchlist type scheme? Why did you then remove it? Are you going to stop making such edits? Or do them differently so attribution is clear? RudolfoMD (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa? RudolfoMD (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been requesting that Ozzie stop making those (unhelpful) edits for years. They not only create the problem RudolfoMD mentions-- they also add unnecessarily to WT:MED participant watchlists, while adding nothing to the discussion. I've never seen a reason why Ozzie does it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Odd Ozzy silence above. Not a good look. How does this image connect to a project watchlist, I wonder. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
She means that when you make a small edit, it appears in Special:Watchlist, even if the edit didn't add anything that you think is substantive. This can be draw attention to the section, because some people will see the image being added and consequently also see the section it was added to, but it does entail a little bit of extra work for people who are checking every edit (as opposed to people like me, who check all the edits at once). I'd rather see an image added than to see a comment that says "bump" or "adding a comment so it won't be archived", but everyone is going to have their own personal preferences.
Also, @RudolfoMD, I see that yesterday was your six-month anniversary on Wikipedia. Welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

break d

@WhatamIdoing: It depends. FDA-approved (Q111972129) can be seen here as a 'main' statement, so every qualifier applies to this particular statement and you can't have a qualifier added to a qualifier (second level of qualifiers), so you can't add an additional information that would apply for boxed warning (Q879952). Every date you add here, like start time (P580), would apply to FDA-approved (Q111972129) and not to boxed warning (Q879952).
I'm not really familiar with the US pharmaceutical law and I don't know how boxed warning (Q879952) is issued by the FDA. My example above would mean in WD something like: FDA approved paracetamol as a drug and every drug containing paracetamol in the US must be sold with a black box warning ≈ FDA approval is closely related to the obligation to indicate a black box warning. This is the simplest solution here I can think of, however, adding references to such a statement could be not so simple and would require using applies to part, aspect, or form (P518) (main statement/qualifier) in the references section if there was no single source for information about FDA approval and black box warnings.
You need to think about the scope of information you need for boxed warning (Q879952). Do you want to specify that the black box warning should be placed from a certain date? Or for certain doses etc.?
@RudolfoMD: I still don't know why some parts of my comments on my talk page are not properly visible for you. And I still suggest that proper discussion should be conducted in WD, because any consensus reached here has no validity in WD. d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#diseases_and_rare_diseases mentioned here as a example is in fact an interesting discussion which I followed from the beginning, although I did not participate in it. We had similar in chemistry and in many other areas in WD. To put it very briefly: ontologies (not only in WD) are logical but in many cases counter-intuitive. But it also shows that there is some exchange of views in this project, it is not dead, so an attempt to discuss this topic there is not a priori doomed to failure.
Be bold in WD states that On Wikidata, no clear policy of this kind exists, and the following is thus just an emerging guideline. The page was created by an en.wiki user, edited thrice and never approved as any guideline (I corrected the false template on this page). This doesn't mean you can't make undiscussed edits. However, these types of edits, without specific preparation, often hit a wall in the form of Wikidata's complexity. Wostr (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I added sourcing thus: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q879952&diff=prev&oldid=1981610608
Do you want to specify that the black box warning should be placed from a certain date? Or for certain doses etc.? No, I haven't proposed that. That's not in the source indicated above, is it? (and which, incidentally, it seems should be put into an online spreadsheet.)
Good, so Wikidata:Project_chat# is serving adequately- I see no objection.
On to proceed to seek help with the importing? RudolfoMD (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
The easiest way to import a large set of data is to use d:WD:QS (or a bot). But the first thing (regardless of the import method) is to prepare the data. If [22] is the dataset, I don't see right now an easy way to associate an entry from this dataset with an item in WD. These entries are for pharmaceutical products, not for active substances. There are UNII numbers, however, if there is an entry for 'Epzicom' does it mean that the 'black box warning' statement should be added to Epzicom (Q47499269), abacavir/lamivudine (Q4663143), lamivudine (Q422631), abacavir (Q304330) or abacavir sulfate (Q27105640)? This should be sorted out first, before thinking about the method of import. d:WD:QS is one way to do it, if you have a prepared dataset. Association based on UNII may work, but it won't be perfect, there may be many incorrect additions (judging on previous mass imports that were based on only one identifier). There is also meta:Mix'n'match/Manual tool. It's not an automatic tool and way slower than QS, but may yield better results here. Wostr (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Once again, you come across as throwing up roadblocks. Surely you know I want to use QS but can't yet and that I'm arguing that this is the way to do it, which you've surely seen, and unlike my previous edit, haven't reverted. There is an entry in the table for all four, so abacavir/lamivudine (Q4663143), lamivudine (Q422631), abacavir (Q304330) and abacavir sulfate (Q27105640)? should all have the same. I believe I already stated that it's not selected brands, but APIs that the warnings are mandated for. I don't see how to use the UNII with quicksource, but would welcome help/guidance; as I mentioned, I want to use 'em if they'd improve the import. You say "These entries are for pharmaceutical products, not for active substances" but they are the latter too. We can ignore the per-row redundancy. Is there a previous mass import based on UNII and government data where there were many incorrect additions that you can point to? What's your concern exactly? Are you claiming the FDA's own data on its own actions is highly erroneous? That's quite a claim. I'll look at Mix'n'match.
At least on .en, the API is used for article names, and the appropriate infoboxes would be tweakable to use the info to display something like
as suggested above. RudolfoMD (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
As a lay reader; US: ℞-only ◼︎⚠️ is no more understandable than US: ℞-only ◼︎ and looks awkward when you know the intent is to indicate the same idea. Can we explain what the ◼︎ and ▼ mean instead?
Here are some ways of doing this (with some comments of potential drawbacks):
  • link them to boxed warning – though might have to ignore that we're duplicating wikilinks when there is more than one regulatory body warning, unless there are articles for the equivalent from non-USA bodies (example, the EMA)
  • link to an {{anchor}} within the article – does require the content to exist
  • adding a {{tooltip}} – would need to consider wording as "has a boxed warning" is just as unhelpful and it is not possible to wikilink within a tooltip (though the tooltip itself can be wrapped in a wikilink)
  • using {{efn}} + {{notelist}} – this is my preferred solution and I'm struggling to argue against it (whilst the MOS for infoboxes discourages references that are used elsewhere in the article, there is no mention of other types of footnote. H:FN seems to have no problem with footnotes within an infobox either)
These are off the top of my head, there are probably alternatives. Little pob (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm just trying to handle the FDA warnings, at least to start - seems plenty complicated. In general, the content doesn't exist, which precludes {{anchor}} at least most of the time and at least as an initial solution. I am not familiar with {{efn}} + {{notelist}}. What would that look/code like? I'm guessing/sounds complicated.
Maybe something like this would be good for what appears in the drugbox, speaking of complicated, under US, in the Legal Standard section. (Warning in a black box):
or
 !? (clickable!) (I guess with {{efn}} + {{notelist}} something similar but better could be achieved?) RudolfoMD (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Using {{efn}} could look something like the examples here: User:Little pob/scratchpad
As others have alluded to WP:NOMED, have kept the footnotes generic rather than along the lines of "FDA says X when taking this medication". Little pob (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd love to get this to work. If there's no notes section, this doesn't degrade gracefully, and I've no idea how to get the notes {{notelist}} section added to the hundreds of articles it would need. Perhaps there's a bot that does that already when it sees it's needed. I could test to find out? RudolfoMD (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
1. If you want to call them roadblocks, go ahead. Without my initial intervention, you could have added thousands of entries to WD, which would then all have to be deleted. Now, slowly, the idea of adding this information is taking shape and may become valuable information in WD. I spent many years in WD, millions of edits in the field of chemical compounds, and I have already seen many different cases where hasty actions led to the need for mass corrections, deletions, merging, etc.
2. I don't see how to use the UNII with quicksource, but would welcome help/guidance – the way I see it, you would have to download the FDA data, download all the WD items with UNII (two .xls spreadsheets) and then properly compare both files based on UNII so that you are left with a list of items in WD for which there is a corresponding record on the FDA list.
3. This is not the problem with FDA data, it's the problem of the data in WD. In the past there were many mass imports, most of the importers didn't care about the data consistency. In many cases we also did not have defined procedures and data models. This means that existing data problems in WD (e.g. unresolved constraint violations) cause errors to propagate to subsequent statements/items during such imports. A solution such as mix'n'match, which involves semi-automatic and manual addition of statements, is much more resistant to such problems; the use of QS, in which you are not able to manually review thousands of results and the entire adding process will take little time, is more susceptible – and in the past, QS imports based on only one identifier, e.g. the CAS number, led to many errors.
4. It is also possible that the information would first be added to the infoboxes in en.wiki, and then exported to WD as there are tools for that. Only then it would be a duplication of work, because data from WD can be imported automatically to the infoboxes in en.wiki.
5. By the way, seeing the proposal of what it could look like in the infobox and as an advocate for accessibility in my home wiki, I would like to point out your Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility guidelines. Probably, an image with an alt= attribute or abbr tag for this unicode character would be sufficient. Wostr (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
1. I sought feedback and got none, so I made one edit, and got some. I continue to proceed prudently.
I've just edited a second item. I intend to use QS on a handful of items and scale up in steps, checking the results and leaving time for others to do the same.
2. I don't follow. As I said twice, I want to use 'em if they'd improve the import. Not seeing an argument that they would. At the moment, it seems baroque - an unnecessary complicated detour around an ... obstacle.
3. Of course there have been bulls in the china shop. But it's important to not forget why Wikipedia works, and Nupedia didn't. I could well be wrong, but mix'n'match does not seem appropriate, as I don't anticipate much of the ambiguity it's designed to help with.
4. I see Albendazole is pulling data from WikiData. I can see the wikitext in the template, but can't make heads or tails of it:
(<code> ::::::: from Wikidata :::::::| label99 = [[ECHA InfoCard|<span title="echa.europa.eu">ECHA InfoCard</span>]] :::::::| data99 = {{#if:{{#property:P2566}} | [https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/{{#property:P2566}} {{#property:P2566}}]{{EditAtWikidata |pid=P2566}}{{main other|[[Category:ECHA InfoCard ID from Wikidata|*]]}}}} :::::::</code>)
- RudolfoMD (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
2. Now I don't follow either. Quickstatements is an extremely powerful tool. In minutes or hours, you can do work that would normally take months of manual editing. However, the problem at the beginning is always the preparation of data that is then used in QS. For example, in recent months, using Wikidata Query Service and Quickstatements, I made tens of thousands of edits – in 30 seconds I could prepare the data allowing me to make 20,000 edits in QS (which were performed automatically). It appears that there are at least several thousand edits, if not a dozen, to be made to add the FDA data. From my point of view, it seems reasonable, instead of making these edits manually, to first properly process the data, and then be able to run QS and make all the edits automatically. In my opinion, it would be a big time saver, but I'm not going to impose this on you. I am presenting the possibilities that I know about.
4. While I am maintaining the equivalent of the Chembox template in pl.wiki, both projects are far from each other in terms of technical solutions. Based on what I see I think that the easiest way to import data from WD to en.wiki infobox would be to use something like: 
{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|output}}
('String' module with 'match' function checks if the imported values of P3493 property contain 'boxed warning' statement; if yes, the result is then checked using 'ifeq' function and displays an 'output' text; you can test this in e.g. paracetamol in edit preview). However, this is a very clumsy solution, it would be best to write it in an appropriate module in Lua. Wostr (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
PS There is also d:Wikidata:Tools/OpenRefine. Maybe this tool will help. Wostr (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
2. I spotted the/a source of our confusion. What I've been saying is I want to use UNIIs iff they'd improve the import. I think you were reading a pronoun as referring to something else (QS or mix'n'match). Note, I said, "I intend to use QS on a..."
4. Thanks! {{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>}} works at [23] and is a no-op at [24]. That's helpful. And thanks to my edits with mix'n'match, now I'm eligible to use QS. So thanks for that too. Now where to put it to get it in the infobox.... RudolfoMD (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Haven't been feeling up to tackling this Template work. Anyone I can pass the torch to? RudolfoMD (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@RudolfoMD, is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_drug/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1179456993 the most recent (relevant) edit? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
That was an exploratory attempt to try to grok how the drugbox template works, but was sort of the last edit, yes. Wasn't able to learn from it/see any effect. Emphasis on the edit summary - BREAKING #99 to test / explore stuff. OK to revert.. But the code above at "4." seems like a good next step, using what Woster wrote ; I made that more recently. RudolfoMD (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I haven't figured out how to preview the impact of edits to the template sandbox on an article such as Paracetamol where I want to appear. RudolfoMD (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
* Pppery * , can you help? I see you made a requested edit at Template_talk:Infobox_drug. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I have no interest in reading through this entire wall of text to see what needs to be done, and it appears Paine is already on it, so no. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Or P.I. Ellsworth , or User:Arthurfragoso, can you help? Ditto. I see you made a requested edit at Template_talk:Infobox_drug. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Template:Infobox drug/testcases doesn't have any testcases that source from wikidata? RudolfoMD (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
|legal_US_comment= {{{legal_US_comment|}}}??? RudolfoMD (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
To editor RudolfoMD: I do intend to go back over and read this entire block of text, but for now it appears that you want a warning box to appear in articles, such as at Template:Infobox drug/testcases-warning. That's a page I created to test the warning box specifically, although I see it in many of the other test cases I viewed. I'm no Wikidata expert, but it seems that the data from WD is not drawn in preview, so we must rely on test cases to check for the warning box. As I said, I'm no expert, but it does appear to work. Hope this helps. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Looks like earlier you mentioned Brincidofovir – checked that one in preview and the warning box appears, so I seem to be wrong about Wikidata, and I don't have a clue why the boxes don't appear in the Paracetamol article. (???) Need to dig more and I do wish that editor DePiep could be available, because they've done so much work on these chem pages. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies.
Paine, how does one check Brincidofovir in preview of Template:Infobox_drug/sandbox as you did (or I think you're saying you did) to see if the warning box appears? Is there a URL you can share that previews what Brincidofovir (or Paracetamol) looks like with Template:Infobox_drug/sandbox?
The gist is, I'm wanting help with editing Template:Infobox_drug/sandbox. I've made some edits but I'm skeptical I got 'em right, and I can't figure out how to test 'em.
Context: I've got a list of ~1600 drugs that have FDA-mandated black box warnings and so far I've marked a few of them manually in wikidata and intend to mark the rest. I think it indicates consensus to use something like {{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|[[Boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>]]<ref name="FDA-AllBoxedWarnings">{{cite web |title=FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.) |url=https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 |website=nctr-crs.fda.gov |publisher=[[FDA]] |access-date=22 Oct 2023}}</ref>}} in Template:Infobox_drug/sandbox to make a warning appear in response to the wikidata. [Note, this is the previously posted code snippet but modified to link to boxed warning, and have a reference, as of course it should, but now it's much longer. ] [PPS: Edit: Whoops, forgot, User:Little_pob/scratchpad is the plan. I should be sleeping, not editing, right now.]
(PS My bad paging 3 people, expecting maybe 1 would respond. Lesson learned. And not initially providing a clearer summary of the need, so you don't have to read this long, noisy thread.) RudolfoMD (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for that! No problemo. To check in preview, I just go to the article, bring up the edit screen, add the sandbox to the code such as in {{Infobox drug/sandbox, and then click on Show preview. When I do this in the Brincidofovir article, the Warning box does appear. So what I've learned is that if the Wikidata item is correct, then the infobox in the article will be correct, even in preview. I've also learned that we cannot go by the test cases. They might show the Warning box while the infobox in an article might not, as was in the case of Template:Infobox drug/testcases-warning#Paracetamol. We seem to be almost there, but not quite. Another tip is to be sure to use the full template name, "Infobox drug", when you preview the sandbox in an article. You might get an erroneous outcome for those which use the redirect, {{drugbox}}. So, in other words, {{drugbox/sandbox in preview might not work as expected, so instead, be sure to use {{Infobox drug/sandbox. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
My primary concern regarding the warning box image is the space it occupies in an already constrained area. Initially, I wanted to highlight the linebreak between the box and the reference, as seen in the Brincidofovir testcases-warning. Adjusting this by a few pixels could potentially address the issue. However, upon closer inspection, I noticed another opportunity for space optimization: the repeated "Legal status" label, as illustrated in this image (for the 2C-B drug). I'm uncertain if simply implementing a colspan="2" would be the solution, given potential style disruption, but I wanted to offer this perspective for brainstorming purposes. Arthurfragoso (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Your primary concern is no small issue, as I also have thought that the warning box would be helped by a bit smaller rendering of it in the ibox. Perhaps a new template ({{Warning box}}) is needed that has a parameter for size adjustment? or maybe the size can be controlled/decreased in Wikidata? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I have the template working now. @Arthurfragoso, your optimization eliminates the link to Regulation_of_therapeutic_goods. I presume avoiding that is the reason behind the repeated "Legal status" label.
I don't know how to make the warning box resizable or make the template's subheadline a wikilink. Both changes are nice-to haves, but out of scope. Either could be worked on anytime, once someone with the relevant skills shows/expresses interest. In the mean time there's a fix to the disturbing, important issue that some drugs with FDA-mandated Black box warnings have articles that are missing any mention of the box or the risk. A fix that I struggled for some time to accomplish. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Wostr, that code doesn't seem to work when I put it in Template:Infobox drug/sandbox. Any idea what's wrong? PE, Arthur: feel free to improve it (Template:Infobox drug/sandbox). I can't manage to debug it. Willing to help? RudolfoMD (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
As I said, this is not a sophisticated solution, but it should work in any article as long as there is a statement in P3493 in WD with a label 'boxed warning'. It won't work on a template page. I'm not a maintainer of en.wiki infoboxes, I wouldn't want to mess with them. Wostr (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
After a bunch of dead ends I figured out my mistakes and got it working in the sandbox. RudolfoMD (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I could use some help (e.g. at Template_talk:Infobox_drug) getting this live. Whether that's an admin deciding it's good enough to make live and improve later or anyone helping to improve it first. RudolfoMD (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be hung up by one editor's worries about uncited information on Wikidata by other parts of the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for elucidating that to be the case more than I could. I was/am at wit's end, felt personally attacked. I'm not sure if it helps, but I just made Template:Drugboxwarns which differs from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox Drug] only by the change I'm asking be copied to it. I could make a new request based on it; it would me requesting the same change, but arguably more simply; not sure if that would be appropriate application of the KISS principle. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I ("WARNING...") have it working (in the sandbox) with simple CSS. Needs a nudge. RudolfoMD (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm working on using OpenRefine. I made an initial import of ~90 entries. RudolfoMD (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
It's largely done - there are ~~900 drugs with property Boxed warning (Q879952), sourced up from 0. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Yay! Bravo, all. Template is live. There's still work for me/us left - e.g. NIRMATRELVIR AND RITONAVIR (Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is one of the drugs I/OpenRefine failed to mark in wikidata; not sure why. Need to get the import/match to work better. I wonder how many pages the warning is displayed on.
Further discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Black_box_warnings_2nd_project RudolfoMD (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Reactive attachment disorder

User:Buidhe has nominated Reactive attachment disorder for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion about renaming categories related to drug brands may be of interest. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The proposal is to rename the "BigPharma brands" categories (e.g., Category:Bayer brands) to "BigPharma drugs". I've asked for information about how they intend to handle the non-drug brands (e.g., Centrum (multivitamin), which is owned by a corporation spun off from GSK plc; Nature Made, which is owned by a company owned by Otsuka Pharmaceutical; One A Day, which is owned by Bayer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Most important medical articles?

See ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Health and the current list at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/Subpage_4#Health,_medicine,_and_disease and feel free to suggest what is missing or needs to be swapped :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If someone wants to engage with this, the breakdown is:
They are looking for a couple hundred suggestions about what to put in that last group.
@Piotrus, for the last 10 years or so, we have tried to keep Category:Top-importance medicine articles to 100 articles and Category:High-importance medicine articles to 1,000 articles, although I haven't checked them for a while (sometimes an inexperienced or optimistic editor declares their favorite subject to be our top priority, in the misguided hope that we'll focus on their article first). These categories should probably align pretty closely with the vital articles lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing Thanks, that's good to know. I see the assessments count at 100 and 1,071, but I am not aware of how to check which artcles were assed most recently (i.e. what may be the 71 extras). In either case, that's quite useful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger Perhaps you know if there's a way to check what we list at vital vs the assessmens here? Wikidata query might be possible.
There is a lot of mismatch with what we list and what is not high+. Ex. from recent proposals, from those I checked, Syringe is mid, Hypodermic needle is low, scalpel is low, Bandage is low (seriously?), Sling (medicine) is mid (a pathethic stub too, folks...), Crutch is mid, Splint (medicine) is mid, Tourniquet is mid. Ventilator is mid. Only stretcher lucked out as being high. I wonder if there is some rating bias against tools (which is what Tony has recently proposed as additions)? @WhatamIdoing Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
This could be a good opportunity to check and improve our categorization, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Renaming the mid-level article

Please see Talk:Mid-level practitioner#Requested move 12 December 2023. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Explaining the Human Body" videos

explainer video about the thyroid

Hello! A public broadcaster from Germany, Deutsche Welle, just donated thirteen short English-language explainer videos about general physiology to Commons. You can find them at commons:Category:Creative Commons videos by Deutsche Welle. Do you think any of them could be used in an article? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

some do seem usable and helpful, will look at possible articles, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Ozzie10aaaa! Please let me know if you have any comments or questions. --Gnom (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2023‎ (UTC)

Confused about set index articles.

I was going through some of the disease stubs and found Organ-limited amyloidosis. Since it has so many subtypes, would it be appropriate to turn it into a set index article?

I'm only asking because the concept of set index articles are new to me and I easily get confused by them.

CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone is confused by them. The general concept, AIUI, is that Wikipedia:Set index articles are written for a single group of things that are related through both their names and their identity/type (e.g., hurricanes named Bob, but not anything and everything named Bob).
In terms of writing them, it's partway between a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page and an article, and usually maintains a list structure. In a well-developed SIA, the description of the items are often longer than permissible for a DAB page, and may even lean heavily on Wikipedia:Summary style and {{Main}} links.
For the specific page you linked, I suspect that SIA is not technically the right model, as it's a general type (like "hurricanes"). That is, the individual items in it are all types of organ-limited amyloidosis (also: types of amyloidosis, types of disease), but they aren't actually called organ-limited amyloidosis under normal circumstances. People would say "Do you remember what happened on the morning that Hurricane Bob struck?", when they mean a specific storm named Bob that happened in a particular year and not any of the other hurricanes named Bob. But people wouldn't normally say "Remember what happened the morning Grandma was diagnosed with organ-limited amyloidosis?" They'd talk about when Grandma was diagnosed with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or whatever the specific thing is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I really appreciate the help. I will just write it as a standard article then. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Brain tumor - Network communication also plays an important role in the spread of the disease

"It was discovered that the tumor cells communicate with each other in a large network, exchange substances that are essential for survival, and can thus evade the effects of radiation or chemotherapy. Network communication also plays an important role in the spread of the disease. The tumor cells are even networked with healthy nerve cells and receive direct signals from them – in this way, the tumors can grow faster. The mechanisms that are investigated not only offer fundamentally new explanations for the highly aggressive growth of this type of tumor. They also provide approaches for novel therapies – to stop brain tumor growth and make existing therapies more effective. The disruption and even destruction of tumor cell networks is thus becoming a completely new therapeutic principle in oncology, with the first clinical trials building on these findings."

https://www.krebs-nachrichten.de/personalien-details/deutscher-krebspreis-geht-an-heidelberger-spitzenforscher.html

Is this new theme useful to show? Wname1 (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. The relevant MEDRS for this appears to be:
  • Winkler F, Venkatesh HS, Amit M, Batchelor T, Demir IE, et al. (April 2023). "Cancer neuroscience: State of the field, emerging directions". Cell (Review). 186 (8): 1689–1707. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.02.002. PMID 37059069.
and this would certainly be worthy of inclusion somewhere. Bon courage (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I wrote it in Brain Tumor. Wname1 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"IL-5 antibody" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect IL-5 antibody has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 11 § IL-5 antibody until a consensus is reached. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 11:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Verywell Fit and Dotdash Meredith

I have opened up discussion on the Reliable Sources noticeboard regarding false medical information on the Verywell network of sites. Verywell and content by its parent Dotdash (now called Dotdash Meredith) have previously been blacklisted, but is designated as "no consensus" rather than "unreliable" or "deprecated".

I have not started an RFC before and would welcome any comments. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Physiological prematurity

Unreferenced stub that has languished for ~15 years now. Can anyone add refs/verify this, or should be WP:TNT it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I added a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

move?

shouldn't KarXT be moved to something like xanomeline/trospium, similar to dextromethorphan/bupropion? thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Asthma phenotyping and endotyping

New article on "a novel approach to asthma classification inspired by precision medicine": Asthma phenotyping and endotyping. Any comments regarding WP:MEDRS compliance and/or whether it merits a separate article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, it's probably fine. There are multiple review articles with non-overlapping lists of authors, so we have multiple independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Archie Cochrane

I've added the article about Archie Cochrane as being within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. I hope to improve the article and am open to suggestions about how it can currently be improved. John Desmond (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

did a few edits--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

William Utermohlen peer review

Feel free to leave comments for me to improve the William Utermohlen article before I take it to FAC, at Wikipedia:Peer review/William Utermohlen/archive3. Thanks, Realmaxxver (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

New student-created article

A student created a new article on Ovarian squamous cell carcinoma. Give the length of the article, I don't feel confident doing even a basic once-over to make sure it doesn't content anything risky. And since it comes from an advanced pharmacology class rather than a medical class, I don't want to just assume it's probably good.

I have no specific concerns about the article - it looks mostly ok to me - but I would really appreciate if someone could take a critical look at it. Thanks all! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ajpolino, Colin, Keilana, and Johnbod: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not at all competent to check it. I've tried to de-orphan it by linking at Ovarian cancer & Squamous-cell carcinoma, I hope correctly. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@Sarcomadoc is a new editor who might be able to spot problems. MastCell would be another good option, but I don't know if he's around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I looked it over and saw nothing obviously concerning. That's quite an impressive article for a new editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Can someone access the source from which the Advantages and Limitations table comes in this section? The text of the source gives some indication we may need to be concerned about copyright, but I can't see the tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of the text in the table appears to be copied from text in the source. The source does not contain the same table. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I can take a look this weekend. Keilana (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Keilana are you able to deal with the copyright issues raised by Whywhenwhohow? I don't have access ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Got super busy at work and forgot about this, but I'm taking a look now with institutional access. Keilana (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Another

Alzheimer's disease and COVID-19 is from the same course, and is going to need a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a good redirect?

Childhood accidental spiral tibial fracture ==> Toddler's fracture

Would this be a good idea? On one hand, the article seems to distinguish the two kinds of fractures, while on the other hand, it notes that recent work has considered one a subset of the other. Since the latter is more recent, and obviously they're very similar to the layman, I'm wondering whether it should be left red (either to encourage article creation or to avoid confusion), or whether a redirect would be good, both because they're related and because we want to discourage content forking. The phrase doesn't appear in the body of any other article; its only other appearances, in Bone fracture and Crus fracture, are limited to this citation.[1] Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nyttend I personally think it's a good redirect because any effort to expand or create a page for childhood accidental spiral tibial fracture would result in a lot of overlap with Toddler's fracture.
Here is some more references that imply or state that they are synonyms: [25] [26] [27]
CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mellick LB, Milker L, Egsieker E (October 1999). "Childhood accidental spiral tibial (CAST) fractures". Pediatr Emerg Care. 15 (5): 307–9. doi:10.1097/00006565-199910000-00001. PMID 10532655.

Critique of the article on Teething

Dr. Clay Jones, a pacticing paediatrician, has recently raised concern over potential errors in the article on Teething.


Please, see the following link for details:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/from-the-vault-infant-teething-myths-and-misconceptions/ AufbauPrinciple (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_168&oldid=1197235061"