Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66→Archive 70

Hello and an edit-a-thon invitation from User: Steelyskoal

Hello all, I wanted to stop by this page and introduce myself...my name is Katharine and I work at the Center for Women's Health at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon. We have been learning about the work of WikiProject Medicine over the last year and are hoping to be involved in this great project! To that end, my group is hosting an edit-a-thon next week on May 12, focusing on improving women's health-related articles identified by WikiProject Medicine as being of high importance and needing improvement. We are very excited! We've been working with Doc James, Anotherbeliever and Peaceray to get ready, and hope to be able to contribute a lot of high-quality edits during our event.

I was hoping that members of this group might want to be involved, either by contributing edits remotely, or by helping us with follow-up and suggestions during and after the edit-a-thon. We are almost all new users, and would appreciate any advice (and patience!) that you can send our way. This is our project page, if you'd like to take a look at some of the topics we hope to work on, or say hello.

We are very excited to be a part of this effort to provide accurate health information where the world knows to look for it! Steelyskoal (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to involve other editors remotely, then either using an IRC channel or perhaps Mumble are reasonable means of allowing remote communication. We have use of a Mumble server (see Wikipedia:Mumble) and creating an IRC channel for an event is straightforward (see Wikipedia:IRC). I'd be happy to be online via either channel to help and advise as required if you would advertise the start and finish times for the event (in UTC preferably). --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Katharine ... since you have been working with Doc James, can we assume that your group is well versed in WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Edit-a-thons are generally open to the public, meaning that most of the people doing the edits will not be familiar with any rules, even if the organizers are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, I am familiar with those standards, and we've asked Peaceray to join us to help reinforce Wikipedia's expectations for our editing. That being said, we will be hosting many brand-new users, and so there will likely be a learning curve to contend with. Please be patient with us! I will be letting attendees know that they will be expected to follow-up with suggestions made by other users regarding their edits, and hopefully we will be able to ensure everything is up to Wikipedia's standards. It's my intention to be good partners in this work.Steelyskoal (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Electrolyte exclusion effect

Hello again. Just reporting one more draft that may be of interest.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

the references are MEDRS compliant (though the article will need more references)...definitively save this article (it might get merged with the article on Electrolytes, as it currently does not offer such a section)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Ozzie10aaaa, it is in the encyclopedia now. If someone thinks it should be merged, the title can become a redirect.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

New course: Social Psychology at University of Detroit, Mercy

Hi WikiMed,

A new course signed up which will be working on mental health topics this summer: Education Program:University of Detroit, Mercy/Social Psychology (Summer 2015).

Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for letting us know in advance, Ryan (Wiki Ed). Is there someway, anyway, we can encourage the prof to come up to speed on MEDRS and MEDMOS before they begin? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Prof is here User talk:Cboglarsky and I have left guidance on their talk page for their students. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Who got his welcome message yesterday! Gulp. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Indeed. Though I've always sent the links to professors (as they express interest, when I create their course page, and, as practical and/or necessary, in follow-ups), the way I talk about MEDRS in particular has gotten progressively more direct/immediate over time. :) It's also Wiki Ed policy to send printed copies of the editing med/psych topics brochures to be distributed to the students. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Input on antidepressants and suicide among kids

Please comment here: Talk:Study_329#Anti-depressants_and_suicidality. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

give opinion,( i gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

story from april Wired: An Alternative-Medicine Believer’s Journey Back to Science

here. Written by a professor of religion and deals with big picture issues. (how do people in desperate situations cope?) At base a sad story - Yale husband and wife doctors have two sons who turn out to have autism. Go a bit nuts with desperation. Comes back to their senses. Some great headers: "So Open-Minded Your Brain Falls Out"; "Return from the Magic Kingdom". Also has some discussion with Steve Novella. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Written by a professor of religion" - What more is there to say? -A1candidate 22:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
you should read it A1. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do with WPMED? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It shows that Alternative-Medicine is bad and Compulsory-Medicine is good? -A1candidate 23:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
A1 do you live in some kind of totalitarian state? really, "compulsory"? how conspiracy-y are you going to get? nut really i meant you should read it. it is a compassionate article. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that was a joke. Compulsory = no alternatives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Matthew Ferguson 57 we at project medicine go round the block lots of times with WP:Lunatic charlatans (aka alt med advocates) who push and push to give more validity to alt med than the science can bear. Also articles by Steve Novella are often used in alt med/FRINGE articles. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
And with people who think that altmed users are stupid or deluded, rather than trying their best, and with people who think that altmed means "no evidence" rather than the mainstream definition, which is that altmed is any medical idea that is not currently mainstream. It's a flashpoint for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
yes WAID that is true! part of why the wired article is great, is its compassion. i just got a little flamey at A1 there, bad on me. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
How ironic that A1candidate dismisses the article on the basis that it was written by a professor of religion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the American Medical Association's Journal of Ethics has just released a list of evidenced-based (PMID 25901707) and non-evidenced based (PMID 25901708) alternative treatments for autism. Perhaps the Laidlers would have been spared some degree of suffering if these articles were published earlier and cited by Wikipedia? I would certainly hope so. -A1candidate 23:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

if you actually read the wired article, you can see how even the most science-based people fall into the madness. the stuff published there is not new; it was all available to the ladlers. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've taken a quick look at the article: The Laidlers went through a lot, Alternative-Medicine is largely a scam, and Novella is partly right. That still does not diminish my argument that the Laidlers might have been spared a lot of their suffering if PMID 25901707 and PMID 25901708 were published earlier and we had cited them immediately - so that the whole world knows what is real and what is fake. You're not going to argue against this, are you?-A1candidate 00:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
glad you took a look at it, thanks for that. our articles are already pretty clear on this stuff (see for example Autism_therapies#Chelation_therapy). i am not big believer in any one source being heroic nor the need to use it, urgent. we have no deadline. but i will say, that what you are saying, points up why it is good that we have a high bar for making positive statements about interventions in WikiProject Medicine. People don't get frustrated with that, but this is why we keep the bar high for making positive claims arethat way, steady on, steady on. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (delete "don't" that was a mistake Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)}
I believe one of the reasons why we disagree on so many things, is due to the fact that we communicate very differently - I prefer straight and direct language, while you tend to use cryptic language that requires your listener to decipher its meaning. Let me be clear once again: I have no idea what you're talking about and how this relates to my comment above. Care to explain the point of your last sentence in more direct terms? -A1candidate 00:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
sorry had some garble there. fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A1, if you think that anything this family was going through, at the time they were going through it, could have been addressed by anyone having access to good sources to write our articles then, well, you must not have been around then to deal with the walled and wacky POV garden that was our entire suite of autism articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not dispute the dedication that you and others put into this project. Since these articles were unavailable back then, they would not have helped the family at that time. The walled and wacky POV garden was obviously a great problem back then, and it still is a big problem now. Medicine is an ever changing science, however, and it is therefore important for us to keep up with current medical literature. The question is what should we do with ideas and treatments that move out of the POV walls and actually become mainstream? -A1candidate 01:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that A1 must be fortunate enough to have all of his/her loved ones in good health, which is probably typical of our (mostly younger adults, mostly wealthy/industrialized countries) editors. I suspect that most people have to live through (or next door to) a similar situation to understand how little the statistics and evidence matters to most people while they're the middle of it.
I read up on this when I was writing Breast cancer awareness. When you think you're going to die, the fact that they've found "the secret cure" is very attractive. The 'thinking' (scare quotes intended) runs like this: Aaaiiiieeee, I'm going to die! Everybody with cancer dies!! Everyone with breast cancer does surgery and chemo. My doctor recommends surgery and chemo, but he's not looking happy, and he's making no promises. He's distinctly guarded about the prospects, and he looks kind of tired and discouraged. Hmm, maybe surgery and chemo doesn't work. If it did, he'd be happy, wouldn't he? Also, he gave me bad news, so he must not be a source of good information. I wonder what might work? Hey, this very friendly, very happy guy says that if you do this secret other thing, this thing that almost nobody knows about, then you're totally cured! Total cure is exactly what I want! No wonder everyone else dies; they don't know about the secret cure! Secret cure sounds great! Sign me up!!
It sounds stupid, and it is thoroughly illogical, but that's how humans seem to work. In fact, those of you who've read Ben Goldacre might recall that one of the things he wants to learn about homeopathy and similar altmed practitioners is how to extract the value of their placebo effect, and copy it over to the evidence-based parts of medicine. If oncologists met early-stage breast cancer patients (whose prognosis is really very good) with the same smile and enthusiasm and confidence and salesmanship as the sellers of snake oil, then we might see less interest in nonsense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A1, I was trying to say that back then it would not have mattered a bit what was written anywhere; the autism suite was controlled by POV pushers, and misinformation was status quo until Eubulides came along and rewrote the whole shebang. But the two or three editors who owned those articles before Eubulides came along were not about to be convinced by anything published anywhere that didn't agree with their alt-pov. In fact, a few of them periodically resurface, and they still aren't. Quite a few editors in here (me being the least of those) had to go through years of POV pushing in the autism suite, similar to what we see now in a few other suites of articles ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia - I understand your frustration. Nobody likes to repeat the same point over and over again and be confronted by people who are determined to push an unscientific POV over the course of many years, wasting the time of all editors involved. I am glad that someone came along to correct the misinformation in the end. I hope those few editors will stop doing that eventually. Perhaps I should put the autism article onto my Watchlist too, just to help you out. After all, I am going through the same as what you experienced, except this time, I find myself on the opposite side. What do you think are my best options? -A1candidate 01:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing - I mostly agree with what you say, and I do not doubt the ease with which patients can fall victim to these scams. Your input to the question I've posed to SandyGeorgia would be very much appreciated too. -A1candidate 01:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

at this point:

its time to stop

Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the primary purpose of this wikiproject is to oppose alternative medicine, and I don't think this thread has anything to do with this wikiproject. This kind of post should be discouraged imo. I'm sure you can find more appropriate platforms for it off wp. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

ill second that--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Matthew Ferguson 57 the primary purpose of this wikiproject is not to oppose alt med - in my view its purpose is to build and maintain high quality, well-sourced content about health in Wikipedia. It the course of that, we have to deal with alt med advocates making unsupportable health claims all the time.' It would be much better if they never did that, but this being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," it is inevitable and we end up dealing with it and thus talking about it. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (yes, per Doc James below, add "high quality" Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC))
The goal is to highlight high quality evidence and positions of major organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, User:Doc James. That is why I always use high quality sources including major medical textbooks, review articles, and guidelines of medical organizations. -A1candidate 16:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "high-quality evidence and positions of major organizations" was meant to be an exclusive statement. The purpose is to write an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia article about a medical subject will ideally include high-quality evidence for treatments and the positions of major organizations. It will also include a lot of other information. In fact, the "high-quality evidence and positions of major organizations" part of the information will probably amount to just a quarter of a well-written article. There's usually (with few exceptions) no current "evidence" or "position statements" for names, etymology, classification, causes, mechanisms, symptoms, prognosis, epidemiology, history, and research directions. There is often an appalling lack of attention to special populations. If you accept only "high-quality evidence and position statements", you'll typically be able to write articles that cover the diagnosis, screening, prevention, and treatment of common diseases—and almost nothing else. We just don't bother with testing whether measles might be caused by some other virus this year. There wasn't any "high-quality evidence" published about that non-question in the last five years or so. Since it's undisputed, you will also not find any major organization bothering with taking a position on whether the Measles virus causes measles. Unless you're working in an area of rapid change, or unless you only care about the parts of the article that amount to "What should a good doctor do in typical cases?", then limiting yourself to "evidence" and "positions" is going to miss three-quarters of the factual information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes my statement was just referring to the medical aspects / health claims of the article.
There are usually always high quality sources that discuss names, classification, causes, mechanisms, symptoms, prognosis, epidemiology, and research directions though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
For a common condition or treatment, I expect to find high-quality sources for everything. But your original comment said high-quality evidence, which is a significantly narrower set. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
ideally we present evidence and guidance especially when it comes to content relevant to the practice of medicine... most times they align. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Article about study

Their is a question regarding if an ongoing study is suitable for an independent article [1]. My thoughts is that it is not ready yet. Others? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

as you indicated there is nothing on PubMed...there is this [2]...it might be best to wait for something more substantial (in terms of PubMed)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with a short article about that project. I would view http://epistop.eu as a reasonably reliable source to document the existence of the project and its aims. Looie496 (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The AIDS Support Organization

new article that might of interest to folks here. needs some work. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Helaine (Wiki Ed)

Hi WikiProject,

For the past few months I've had the pleasure of filling in as Wiki Ed's classroom program manager while Helaine Blumenthal has been away on maternity leave. I'm pleased to announce that Helaine is back and resuming her role as of the end of this week. She's up to date regarding the conversations between folks at WPMED and WikiEd in her absence, including the step in the onboarding process whereby we announce new classes working on medical/health topics on this page. Those announcements will be coming from her in the future and she'll be responding to questions/comments/concerns about classes (along with, of course, Ian (Wiki Ed) and Adam (Wiki Ed)). I will still be around, however, working with Wiki Ed in another capacity (and, of course, as a volunteer). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you for the update--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ryan Looking forward to working with you all in the future. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hypersexual disorder and sexual addiction

@James Cantor: here's your discussion, enjoy.

This issue is more or less summarized in these 2 edit summaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypersexual_disorder&type=revision&diff=660248201&oldid=660192485

I merged the former article to the latter because it's a stub article for a medical disorder which exists entirely as a MOS:MED diagnostics section (and in relation to only a single manual at that) and PMID 24001295, a current meta-analytic systematic review, asserts that they're synonyms.

Of the current refs on that page, the APA and DSM refs are obviously primary sources for coverage of the DSM, the news articles are simply inconsequential as they're not medical sources, and only one satisfies MEDRS as a medical review - Kafka, M. P. (2010). Hypersexual Disorder: A proposed diagnosis for DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 377–400.. In the author's summary section, he wrote "Hypersexual Disorder has been primarily characterized as compulsive, impulsive, a behavioral addiction or a sexual desire disorder. Regarding the possible categorical placement in DSM-V, this author suggests that the term ‘‘compulsive,’’while apt in describing features of these conditions, is not consistent with prior DSM-based conceptualization of an obsessive–compulsiv?e spectrum disorder." As a sexual addiction is literally, by definition of an addiction, a "compulsive sexual behavior", this author does not differentiate the two concepts at all.

IDK about you all, but I don't think a rejected diagnostic model of a term for a disorder (which that page does't even define, mind you) from a single diagnostic manual is a notable enough topic to merit its own independent page, especially when medical reviews indicate that the term is synonymous with an existing well-defined disorder. Given the current page text and these two reviews, keeping this page is simply undue weight toward the DSM's nonexistent model for the term. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree they should be merged for the same reasons you outline. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
ill second that--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Sexual addiction is a hotly contested way of looking at hypersexuality and should not be used as the catch-all for every way of looking at it. Indeed, there exist very many RS's decrying the addiction model for sex (never mind the addiction model of very many other problems). Googling "hypersexual disorder" retrieves >100,000 hits and continues to be used in very many RS's. Schoalr.google retrieves >500 cites. To absorb what sex researchers use into what (many) sex researchers explicitly deny to be true is not helpful to readers. WP records all human knowledge, not just the human knowledge as it appears in the DSM. There exist other manuals (such as the ICD), and there exists the science itself, which of course predates what goes into whatever manual (years later). Whatever anyone feels is missing from the page can be added to the page. Indeed, I would be happy to help people find it.
That the proposal was rejected for inclusion in the DSM-5 is not an argument for not covering the material in WP. The debate was not only highly notable, it continues today, it continues to influence other discussions in RS's, and it is (unsurprisingly) guiding the research on the topic which continues to be going on. (With the DSM as with WP, consensus can change.)
And, FWIW, blanking pages with diff comments like "an obscenely retarded dependence model" is not how to win friends and influence people. Although I am not a fan of the DSM, such phrases suggest the deletion is part of an individual editor's philosophy.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I called it an obscenely retarded dependence model because addiction and dependence are a dichotomy of compulsion. Addiction involves pathological positive reinforcement, dependence involves pathological negative reinforcement, and compulsions simply involve pathological reinforcement (one or both forms). The DSM deviates the most from the underlying science of addiction in the way that it operationally defines their models, hence my annoyance with their stupidity. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't really have an issue with the existence of that page if it simply moved to hypersexuality (DSM) while hypersexuality linked to sexual addiction. Doing that would resolve the issue with that page giving the DSM the one-and-only word on the associated disorder/concept with the term; doing that would also conform to the description of the phrase as noted in both reviews. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Each classification of an underlying issue should not really get its own page. Thus happy with the merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, can I just point out that all the basic biochemical research in the field of sex addiction research was carried out in non-human animals? Perhaps we should add the word "in animal models" or, more specifically "in rats" (or whatever the appropriate model animal was) in all the appropriate places. You cannot just generalize from animal behavior to humans, and the fact that there is a biological model for hypersexuality in animals does not imply that people who are (to be blunt) getting more sex than their critics approve of exhibit the same behavior seen in lab animals. Perhaps all this material could be shunted out into a new article, sexual addiction in non-human animals, or animal models of sexual addiction? -- The Anome (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You can go ahead, though I'd revert you and have MEDRS-support for my actions because...surprise...all the reviews are indicative of humans per mesh terms; WP:MEDANIMAL also has does not preclude the use of secondary sources which cite animal models, it literally SAYS to do that - I made that shortcut, so you'd think I'd know that policy.
Provided animal data meets specific conditions, genetic/epigenetic data can be and has been translated to human models and human database annotations. E.g., PMID 24174439 and PMID 24174444 cover specific cases. If you actually care that much, go read the relevant material on pubmed for other species. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Seppi333, at Talk:Hypersexuality you stated the following: Maladaptive non-drug-related behaviors, whether they be compulsive (i.e., addictive), obsessive, or otherwise excessive to the point of concern, aren't well characterized clinically yet. Consequently, there won't be any consensus on a precise medical statement in the literature as to what constitutes "hypersexuality". That said, it's certainly not a fringe concept, since maladaptive sexual behavior is well documented in humans (e.g., drug-induced and drug-unrelated compulsive sexual behavior, in both genders) - the term "hypersexuality" just doesn't have an clinical association with a specific/precise form or pattern of maladaptive sexual behavior yet (it differs from the term "sexual addiction" in this respect, since an addiction is a precisely-defined pattern of maladaptive [compulsive] behavior). At present, it's probably best to keep the scope of this article broad to account for the imprecise definition of the term.
Do you still feel that way? I ask because above you stated, "Frankly, I wouldn't really have an issue with the existence of that page if it simply moved to hypersexuality (DSM) while hypersexuality linked to sexual addiction." Did you mean that you want hypersexuality to redirect to the Sexual addiction article? Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I also see that hypersexuality is currently mentioned in the WP:Lead sentence of the Sexual addiction article as a WP:Alternative title even though it is yet to redirect there. Flyer22 (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
My opinion on the classifying the terminology involving sex-related compulsive disorders, like "hypersexuality", "hypersexual disorder", "sexual compulsion", "sexual addiction", etc, changed consequent to reading the 2014 systematic review that I noted above. More articles will likely need to be merged into the sexual addiction article in the future, although I'm not in any hurry to act on this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Edit: one thing I haven't mentioned here which is particularly relevant to my decision to merge this is the advent of US government's (National Institute of Mental Health) development/backing of Research Domain Criteria for future editions of the DSM. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Other the Hypersexuality and Hypersexual disorder articles, what other merge options are there in this case? Sexual compulsion, for example, has redirected to the Hypersexuality article since 2005. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Sexual dependence and sexual compulsion should redirect to sexual addiction due to the generic definitions (i.e., outside the context of sex) of those terms. Nymphomania, erotomania (article already exists), satyriasis, are context specific terms that for now should probably redirect to the current hypersexuality article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: The reason that I didn't mention erotomania is because it's not the same thing as hypersexuality/sexual addiction. I see you struck through mention of that above. There is the Don Juanism article, but, to me, it doesn't seem that it should be merged with any of the above articles. Flyer22 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If there's already an article for such context-specific terms, they should just be left alone IMO. At least, they're not relevant to my argument above. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Tagging anatomy and sexual talk pages with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles

Because of a recent past matter, I have avoided Bfpage. But since Bfpage still edits topics I edit even after that recent past matter, I have interacted with Bfpage lately when reverting Bfpage at different articles. It's because of this that I also decided to start this discussion. As noted here and seen here, Bfpage has added Template:Reliable sources for medical articles to an anatomy article talk page and to a sexual article talk page. And before that, as seen with this and this edit, Bfpage added the WP:Med WikiProject tag to one article talk page...and the WP:Med WikiProject tag and Template:Reliable sources for medical articles to another article talk page. But articles do not get tagged with the WP:Med banner simply because they include medical information; by this, I mean that WP:Med has generally restricted its WP:Med banner to articles that are mostly medical or are otherwise substantially medical. This doesn't mean that health content in an article should not be compliant with WP:MEDRS; it obviously should. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 28#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 29#Template talk:Sexual orientation#Pansexuality and polysexuality for further detail. And this discussion and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 55#Anatomy pages with clinical content for even more detail.

So if WP:Med generally does not put anatomy or sexual articles within its scope (this sexual article that Bfpage also tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles is an exception), does that mean that these articles should also not be tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles? After all, Template:Reliable sources for medical articles states, "Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles." and "Use this template at the top of a talk page for an article in the purview of WikiProject Medicine." Regarding the first quote, anatomy topics usually do not need review articles; the detail is usually covered in an anatomy book or other academic book. Obviously, a lot of medical topics are covered in academic books, and those books might be better than one or more review articles. WP:MEDRS currently states, "Ideal sources for biomedical content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." So certain books can also be ideal medical sources. And as noted times before here and at WP:Anatomy, new sources are usually not needed for anatomical information because human anatomy and what scientists have learned about it usually has not significantly changed; there are exceptions, such as the human brain. And at that article's talk page, WeijiBaikeBianji added Template:Reliable sources for medical articles. In this discussion with Colin and SandyGeorgia at Talk:Ketogenic diet, Bfpage appears convinced that newer medical sources are necessarily better. Anyway, those are my thoughts on all of this. I will alert WP:Anatomy to this discussion I've started. Flyer22 (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

yes books (Google books) are excellent sources for that matter, your correct...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree that we should use the best possible medical sources possible and the most up-to-date sources possible. I it may be that new sources are usually not needed for anatomical information, but if physiology is included in an anatomical article, then of course, research is typically ongoing and relevant to the topic. Using the appendix as an example, old anatomical sources considered it a 'vestigal' organ when in fact, now, it is a very important part of the immune system and there is, undoubtedly, reliable information on that topic. I would like to initiate a discussion regarding the application of the medical references guidelines to anatomy articles simply because it would encourage higher quality articles sourced with the most up-to-date information possible and make the encyclopedia better.
I have just assumed that if an article contains medical or health information, then it should get tagged with the med refs template. I've been writing a few articles on bacteria in the genus Mycoplasma. Some are pathogenic some are not. The ones that cause disease get the med refs template on the talk page and the ones that do not, do not get the med refs template.
Why wouldn't we want anatomy articles brought up to as high a standard as health articles?
Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  12:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is a curious situation, and casts the article tagging at FA Ketogenic diet in a whole new light. Bfpage, even after multiple explanations from several editors, your post above doesn't seem to acknowledge that newer isn't always better. Could you please take greater care to actually identify a problem before tagging an article, and have a look at WP:OWN#Featured articles? At Ketogenic diet, you posted to talk, and then immediately began tagging the article, without waiting for any feedback, and adding to that the other issues raised by Flyer22 doesn't result in a good picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully invite you to revisit the talk page on the Ketogenic diet where I will be working with Colin. I have found more recent and multiple references that he and I will be working on integrating into the article to improve the encyclopedia. I agree with your statement and acknowledge that newer isn't always better.
Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  12:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
No one is stating that "we [don't] want anatomy articles brought up to as high a standard as health articles." Anatomy articles are usually part health. I am asking, if WP:Med generally does not put anatomy or sexual articles within its scope, does that mean that these articles should also not be tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles? I am stating that anatomy articles follow WP:MEDRS where reasonable (the well-taken-care-of anatomy articles, that is); read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report. And editors, including here and here, are stating that newer is not automatically better. This factor has been made clear countless times at the WP:MEDRS talk page; for example, see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 10#Standardizing the five-year rule. Stop viewing WP:MEDDATE so strictly; it is not as strict as some editors make it out to be; for example, it clearly states, "These rules of thumb have several exceptions: History sections often cite older work for obvious reasons." The same usually applies to Society and culture sections as well. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
And let's not forget that WP:MEDDATE also currently states, "While the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism." Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
agree with Flyer22 (BfPage indent when replying. thank you)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It may be useful for someone uninvolved to date to give Bfpage some gentle (or firm) guidance. It has been pointed out to her by now that Colin is one of the main architects of MEDRS (he doesn't need to be pointed towards links to recent reviews), there is a link at the top of Talk:Ketogenic diet pointing to reliable sources, and yet, we see posts like this and this on article talk. Bfpage, please sign your posts, and please consider the flies-honey-vinegar principle and back off and let Colin do what he is quite capable of doing. Every time you make an unhelpful post on talk, people's watchlists go off, and no matter how many times you add the word respectfully to your posts, it is disrespectful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thank you again for your comments and we will help make the encyclopedia better by working together to find good, reliable, relevant, informative references that will keep the article Ketogenic diet intact with its FA status. I again state that there is no harm into looking into locating updated information in recently published med journal review articles on the ketogenic diet. The article can only get better. I have a lot of respect for the contributing editors to the article and will continue to work with anyone who wants to see something good get even better. I have read every reference posted above this comment and appreciate the efforts to point me to the relevant information. If someone wants to give me firm or gentle guidance, I am very willing to listen and to read it. I acknowledge the possibility that all of the older references may be the best references but after my own cursory search of the recent literature this is probably unlikely.
I also apologize for neglecting to sign every post I make to every talk page and will make every effort to improve upon signing and indenting. If my posting has resulted in frustration over my lack of proper formatting and indenting, I would like to apologize for that also. Best Regards:
  Bfpage |leave a message  16:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Original question

Flyer asked a "yes or no" question: If WP:Med generally does not put anatomy or sexual articles within its scope, does that mean that these articles should also not be tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles?

Direct answer: Whether the page is tagged with {{WPMED}} means nothing about whether it would also benefit from tagging with {{Reliable sources for medical articles}}. Add the former template whenever the article is one that this group of people wants to work together on. Add the latter template whenever the contents of the template would be useful to an editor of that article (even if this group wants nothing to do with the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to point out that I'd rather the original question I proposed be clarified. I appreciate that you did that. That the discussion got off track is partly my fault by addressing different matters in my original post. Flyer22 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I often go to a talk page to where the {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} is posted and use it find information on another topic that I am researching, especially bacteria. It is a very helpful template. It certainly won't do harm to include the {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} template to anatomy articles. It will only provide tools for those who want to use it. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  18:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Editors should make sure that they are not needlessly removing one template for another. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
And the harm I was concerned with, as indicated above, is any editor interpreting WP:MEDRS and/or its WP:MEDDATE section too strictly or just plain inaccurately. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Premarin

just re-ordered this per WP:MEDMOS but it needs sourcing and fixing. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

MedlinePlus

They have recently partly dumped ADAM and have more PD content such as [3]. It is good source if want simple wording for stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

that's the key...simple wording and therefore not encyclopedic, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Simple wording can still be encyclopedic. We need to make at least our leads easier to understand. We can have the body of the text more complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Food fortification#Excess intake of micronutrients

Please have a look at this section. Hm... Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

references 15 and 19 are not review articles, and references 17 and 18 (fall considerably outside) 5 years or so for a review article ...these references are from the section mentioned in the post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing human embryo DNA

CRISPR

The NIH has reacted to news about Chinese research in human embryo DNA editing by means of CRISPR/Cas9.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Practically, there are multiple existing legislative and regulatory prohibitions against this kind of work. The Dickey-Wicker amendment prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed (H.R. 2880, Sec. 128). Furthermore, the NIH Guidelines state that the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, “…will not at present entertain proposals for germ line alteration”.[4]...the problem with this theory is that some other country will (or has already)...yet the NIH does not fail to recognize it s importance Genomic editing is already widely studied in a variety of organisms. For example, CRISPR/Cas9 has greatly shortened the time it takes to produce knockout mouse models of disease, enabling researchers to study more easily the underlying genetic causes of those diseases. This technology is also being used to develop the next generation of antimicrobials, which can specifically target harmful strains of bacteria and viruses. In the first clinical application of genomic editing, a related genome editing technique (using a zinc finger nuclease) was used to create HIV-1 resistance in human immune cells...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

New data

One question we were asked follow the publication of this paper [5] was would the size or composition of the core community change if we were to look at changes in bytes of content rather than more than 250 edits.

We have now mostly answered that question with the data here. Both the size and the composition of the community is very similar regardless if bytes or total edits are examined. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

very good data and study--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Can someone make that chart sortable? I am relieved to find that there are multiple editors who are removing as much crap as I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
i was thinking about the "builders" and "cleaners" dynamic too. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I say that with some not-so-small-amount of resentment, since "adding to the sum of all human knowledge" in my case (that is, before the onset of the student phenom) used to mean ADDING not SUBTRACTING. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
i know... we all spend more time than we like on maintenance. part of the deal of this place. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, your wish is my command
James, User:CommonsDelinker is a bot. You've also got a "user" with no username in the table (search for "45151" to find the line). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
WaId, cool-- thanks! Doc, I have edits on TS etc in Spanish, but my English language percent shows at 1 ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

James, what did you measure there? WPMED-tagged articles? All articles? Talk pages? Is the percentage of edits per language a measurement of all edits or just WPMED articles—and if the latter, then how do you find the articles on other wikis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Cloud-chasing

Recently created article, Cloud-chasing. Looks like that this term is having multiple meanings. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

related to electronic cigarette article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone, the page can be moved to "Cloud-chasing (electronic cigarette)". QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaa: yes this one is. But the term has multiple meanings. I have moved the page per QG's suggestion. Note that he is the creator of this article as well. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Drug marketing

Peripherally related to what we do here.. a company called Amarin Corporation is suing the FDA, "hoping to convince a federal court that the FDA prohibition on off-label promotion violates the company’s First Amendment rights, and that its reps should be able to convey truthful and 'non-misleading' information to doctors." See here. Has to do with marketing of their fish oil derivative, Ethyl eicosapentaenoic acid. Should drug companies be able to provide evidence to doctors, or will they just use that in a scammy way. History says the latter... Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This smells like a publicity stunt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't there an earlier lawsuit along these lines from Allergan? I think they dropped it as one of the terms of some settlement with FDA. For some history, Amarin is pissed that the FDA gave them a Special Protocol Agreement stating that if they met certain endpoints (if memory serves these were surrogates), the FDA would approve for use in a broad patient population and not just in the extremely hyperlipidemic. They ran the trial, met the criteria, and FDA decided to retroactively withdraw the SPA. So this is Amarin's way of throwing a fit I guess. The company press release about the retroactive withdrawal of the SPA is here. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 22:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
there are interesting and (in my view, disheartening) things going on in US law, where commercial speech (speech by companies) is being treated more like speech by actual people. that is what Citizens United was all about. i don't much care for the argument that drug marketing (commercial speech) should be free of regulation due to the 1st amendment. with the current SCOTUS that might be where things are going, though. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I generally agree with you, but am not sure that part of the issue is that we demand too little from the physicians that we entrust with the ability to prescribe off label. Clearly corporate behavior has been atrocious. But to the best of my knowledge, no patient has ever experienced an AE due to a prescription written by a sales rep. Recognizing that the abuses by industry have been horrific, on some level it still startles me that we have to protect physicians who have been entrusted with the ability to prescribe off-label from the sales pitches of 25 year old former English majors who give away (gasp) coffee mugs. By similar reasoning, we might pass legislation to prevent physicians from entering the grounds of automobile dealerships unattended. God forbid that they spend 10 minutes alone with the salesperson and leave the lot having purchased 6 Chevrolets. Again, I'm not trying to excuse anything on the part of the manufacturers. But I think we could see a little more responsibility taken by the medical community, at least in those cases in which the safety and efficacy profile of products was not fabricated. Does everybody hate me now? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 17:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
bad metaphor and mostly offtopic. commercial speech is commercial speech. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Selling cars isn't commercial? In general I agree with you that under current conditions, allowing drug reps to share information about off label uses with physicians is a bad idea. But as a scientist, I find restricting the flow of ideas (even commercial ones) a troubling, last resort way to handle problems. Much better I think to teach people to think critically, and entrust decision-making responsibilities only to those who have demonstrated that ability. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Veterinary acupuncture

Possible MEDRS violation. See Veterinary acupuncture#Mechanism. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veterinary_acupuncture&type=revision&diff=660559487&oldid=660510952 QuackGuru (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not a violation. The topic is about veterinary acupuncture, that is why we cite the review articles of verterinary medicine. -A1candidate 00:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The text and other text is unreadable for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, then go to the talk page (not here) to voice your concerns -A1candidate 00:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
We need more editors to take a look. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent (i.e. post-2011) reviews in both veterinary text books[2][17][18][19] and scientific journals[20][21][22][23][24] indicate that acupuncture can be used for therapeutic or homeostatic effects in animals, especially in the three areas of pain management, geriatric medicine and sports medicine. Conditions that have the best responses to veterinary acupuncture are considered to be pain, immune-related dysfunction and visceral dysfunction.[19] The text is a WP:SYN violation and is poorly written. See Veterinary acupuncture#Efficacy. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

its an interesting topic QuackGuru and you did the right thing by asking for editorial help--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • When I lived in Seattle my hamsters seemed to respond positively to acupuncture, but it could have been the crystals in the room. I looked in the literature everywhere for rodent acupuncture sources and could not find anything. Watching the treatment is fun because typically clinics which do this have spectators seating and the hamsters seem to like the attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
When did you look at the literature? Which databases did you check? How did you come up with zero results? -A1candidate 16:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
There's stuff on rat acupuncture e.g. PMID 23386059. Rat/hamster, hamster/rat: bada bada bing, bada boom. Not sure if the crystal/acupuncture interaction effects have been explored for rats though. Alexbrn (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
rats are not hamsters! there are actual sources on hamster hypertension (PMID 6990216) and gallstones (that one in chinese though). Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I thought that infertility was the big area for hamster research, not cardiovascular stuff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
PURPOSE: Istaroxime is a new luso-inotropic compound. It exerts inotropic action by reducing Na+/K+-ATPase activity, and simultaneously it stimulates sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca(2+)-ATPase function, thus also inducing lusitropic action. The aim of present study is to assess the effect of chronic istaroxime treatment on cardiac function and heart rate variability in Bio TO.2 Syrian hamster model of progressive heart failure.[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Do they have special hamster/rat sized needles? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
researchers designing experiments requiring single or repeated intravenous treatments should consider technique refinements that may enhance animal comfort including the use of the smallest needle or catheter size possible to minimize injection trauma, butterfly needles for single injections to minimize perivascular trauma...[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS issues

Thonningia#Uses could do with some expert attention. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed some poor sources and adjusted wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: great work, thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Air pollution

The section "Health effects" has some stuff sourced to primary studies that don't meet MEDRS. Was bringing it to the attention of this WikiProject in case anyone wanted to try to address this issue. Everymorning talk 15:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

the references 20-23,25-29,31,32,33,35-40,45-50,52,53,54 are not MEDRS compliant and relate to the specific section mentioned Health effects --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
(add)this [8] and [9] the latter having mentioned no specific page due to the books "very good" completeness on the subject can generally be used for the section in question--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on COI for alt-med practitioners

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed wording to increase readability

Please see Talk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed wording.

This proposal is for the text at Electronic cigarette#Legal status.

Current wording: "As of 2014, a small number of states in the US allow e-cigarettes to be taxed as tobacco products.[43] In addition, indoor smoking bans have been extended to include e-cigarettes in some states and by regional governments in the US.[43]"

Specific proposal: "As of 2014, some states in the US permit e-cigarettes to be taxed as tobacco products, and some state and regional governments in the US had extended their indoor smoking bans to include e-cigarettes." I think my edit should be restored because the wording is more concise which makes it more readable for the general reader using less words. QuackGuru (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

current wording (due to lead up IMO...Because of the novelty of the technology and the possible relationship to tobacco laws and medical drug policies, electronic cigarette legislation is currently pending in many countries.[21] As of 2015, around two thirds of major nations have regulated e-cigarettes in some way.[153] Current regulations vary widely, from regions with no regulations to others banning the devices entirely.[21] For example, some countries such as Brazil, Singapore, the Seychelles, and Uruguay have banned e-cigarettes.[4] In Canada, they are legal to sell, however nicotine-containing e-fluid is not approved by Health Canada - making it technically illegal, although widely unenforced and commonly available for sale.[154] As of 2015, e-cigarettes are legal for minors to buy in a few states in the U.S.[28] and since they do not contain tobacco, television advertising is not restricted)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

HIV salivary gland disease

A work in progress. Wondering how/if should be linked to HIV/AIDS and subarticles, for instance Signs and symptoms of HIV/AIDS. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

as per the #3 reference cited in the article in question...HIV infection may manifest itself as salivary gland enlargement and dysfunction[10],it continues ...HIV associated salivary gland disease may be the presenting sign of HIV infection and it has been noted both in HIV-positive and high-risk HIV-negative populations... therefore IMO, it should go to Signs_and_symptoms_of_HIV/AIDS...(BTW reference #4 is dated , perhaps [11]) ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. However this subarticle is organised into 3 clinical stages: acute infection, latency and AIDS. I imagine a small amount of content about HIV-SGD would best fit into the third section, but not sure. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Also I will check suggested reference soon. Thanks. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:BVA-100

Please could someone look at Draft:BVA-100 and decide whether it's notable/appropriate enough for a Wikipedia article. It's far too technical for me, and I know medicine articles have a high standard of sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • As far as MEDRS compliant sources go I may have found 2 through a GS search [12] [13] but I don't have access to the full text of either of them. Sourcing on Google is thin and mostly the company's website or press releases. Sourcing in article appears to be primary studies that don't meet MEDRS. Everymorning talk 01:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
concur, (also this seems to be the third time this article has been submitted, as before it reads like an advertisement)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine

I believe that this effort by User:Mikael Häggström has great potential if it can become pubmed indexed. This would allow our high quality articles to undergo formal peer review and be pubmed indexed / added to PMC. This could be a tipping point for increasing involvement of professionals in editing, increase our reputation among academia, and allow our content to research a whole new audience and be appropriately used as a reference. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Images of Aerococcus urinae is very informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a really interesting idea. I have to admit I'm not clear on the intended scope from looking at the content of the existing issues, though. Some of the 'articles' are galleries of images with a DOI (analogous to something like a figshare or datadryad entry), and the peer review just looks like the process of image selection - certainly useful, but not much like a publication. Many of the others appear to be primarily didactic. The current usage seems to be collecting information and media that can be reused in Wikipedia articles, but it sounds from this post like you'd like to go the other way and publish specific versions of high-quality Wikipedia articles as WJM articles? How would the authorship/attribution for that work? Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Similar to as they did for the Dengue fever article.[14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
That's interesting; I like the idea of enumerating each author's edits as well as describing their contributions. I see a link to the history of the article, but not one to the exact version that was reviewed or published (did I miss it?). Would a WJM article that consists of a specific revision link to that revision or replicate the text at wikiversity?
As for scope, I'm somewhat involved in OA publishing IRL and am trying to figure out what the niche would be for someone to send content to WJM as opposed to an existing compatibly licensed journal that accepts similar content (e.g., Frontiers in Medicine has an "Images in Medicine" section, F1000Research has "observation articles", etc.) It would be really great to see this get over the pubmed index hump. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The version of the dengue article is no one exact version of the Wikipedia article. The journal editors wanted changes that aligned with their manual of style but went against Wikipedia's manual of style. We each compromised on some.
WJM would have duplicated text from one specific version of Wikipedia and then have a link to that version. The benefit of this journal is that its manual of style is the same as ours here at WPMED. Additional benefit is that it is currently free to publish in it. F1000Research is $150 to $1000 per article [15]
If one is publishing a "review type" article based on work done to improve a Wikipedia article, the benefit is that not only will you likely have contributed to the most read article globally on the topic you will get academic credit. No other OA publisher can offer that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this has a lot of potential. There have been other attempts at publishing high-quality wikipedia articles as reviews. The most successful one I know of is over at WP:COMPBIO, where "topic page" reviews have been published in PLoS. Examples are Flow cytometry bioinformatics and Multi-state modeling of biomolecules. I think Daniel_Mietchen has been heading the effort. --Mark viking (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
What needs to happen before PubMed will consider WJM for indexing? I.e., are there specific things we can do to help make this happen? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 14:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement at Psychosurgery and History of psychosurgery

Two editors are vehemently disagreeing about the inclusion of some references (which to me at first sight look fine, but I don't know much about this stuff). Perhaps a knowledgeable editor here could have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have commented at both articles thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ozzie10aaaa (talk · contribs) Could you make a more direct statement on that page as to whether you think the Miguel Faria articles meet MEDRS; or, if they do, whether they are inferior publications to other MEDRS-compliant sources on the topic? FiachraByrne (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I will review both articles over the weekend (add- there are no inferior publications, there are primary sources, there are secondary (review) sources these plus books and position statements from recognized organizations CDC, WHO ,NIH,etc... are what we follow, as long as they are within a reasonable time...5 years or so.)[16]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and point taken on my poor wording. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Secondary is not another way of spelling 'good source'. Some sources are better than others; therefore, some sources are inferior to others. And MEDRS may not apply, since the Faria articles are supporting statements like "This work in psychosurgery became highly controversial and as the debate on psychosurgery heated up in the 70s it was abandoned", which is not "biomedical". There's nothing "bio" in that sentence: whether a controversy existed, and what did or did not happen in the 1970s, are questions of history, not of biology. See plain old WP:RS for the basics, and then consider whether this dispute is actually about reliability or if it's really about WP:DUE (and therefore about POV pushing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials[17]... both articles have This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine on the talk page?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie, I'm tolerably familiar with MEDRS's contents. What I'm telling you that what people believed in a given decade is not "biomedical" content (that's what "such content" refers to; it's in the previous sentence), and therefore it is not covered by MEDRS.
If we're going to continue quoting the {{WPMED}} banner, then perhaps we should adjust it to reflect the policies better. For example, we actually recommend that MEDRS be followed for biomedical information, not for whole articles (and not, say, for biographical information about the thousands of BLPs that tag is present on) and we also recommend that MEDMOS be followed for articles directly about medical topics (and not, again, for the thousands of BLPs that tag is present on). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
there seems to be ample new material on pubmed regarding the subject [18] (in any event I already commented on both article talk pages )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is an interesting discussion but actual content has not been discussed. I read Faria's work on Psychosurgery and his stuff encompasses , not only some operations such as amygdalotomy and thalamotomy, but also the historic reasons for the emergence of psychosurgery, which was not really well covered in the articles. It's true Faria has suggestions towards the end of the article for the future that may be construed as POV, but I think this perspective is needed. Other authors and references cited in both of the articles, especially in the entry Psychosurgery, cover the full spectrum of the technical operations used in psychosurgery, so it does not bother me that Faria has less technical details in his articles and more historical and theoretical points. As it has been mentioned, DBS is considered by many authors as part of psychosurgery or closely connected, so that does not bother me either. The articles should be kept especially in the History of psychosurgery entry, where they are essential. I also read the article by Robison, RA; Taghva A; Liu CY; Apuzzo ML that has also been mentioned and I found it deficient. That is one article that probably should be omitted because the second half is virtually an infomercial for stereotactic equipment and it refers to a number of conditions that are not psychosurgery, such as treatment for Parkinson's Disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. Perhaps I should post this under the article there. Philipegalite (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
your opinion is important and I appreciate any further advise you might have regarding these two articles, for as you can see we have had a long discussion on this matter... I read Faria's work on Psychosurgery and his stuff encompasses , not only some operations such as amygdalotomy and thalamotomy, but also the historic reasons for the emergence of psychosurgery, which was not really well covered in the articles. It's true Faria has suggestions towards the end of the article for the future that may be construed as POV, but I think this perspective is needed...your opinion is therefore valuable, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa, Thank you for the note. Let me know if there are any specific questions you have about those articles or either of those interesting entries. The references are good ones and should be kept, although they were removed from one of the entries. Philipegalite (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
the references are very good and I thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation and the 2015 APS conference

Hi WikiProject Medicine,

The Wiki Education Foundation will be hosting a booth and a workshop at the Association for Psychological Science convention in New York later this month. I know there are a number of WPMED folks who actively edit mental health topics, so if you're going to be there, I hope you'll stop by and say hello! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

good information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Various diuresis stubs merged

More than a year after I first proposed it I finally got around to merging all the stubs that used to be listed at Diuresis by gathering them together on that page to replace the disambiguation list with a single article. Please help to complete the integration of the former stubs by improving the flow and consistency of the style of the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata study

Just posting a link to a discussion on Wikidata, about a study that investigates Wikidata's role in improving the quality of medical content on Wikipedia. Please reply on Wikidata for any questions: d:Wikidata:Project chat#Wikidata can improve the quality of medical information on Wikipedia. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Another shortcoming of the current integration of Wikidata into Wikipedia that was uncovered by our prototype is the way in which literature citations/evidence is rendered. Although backing evidence from Wikidata can be displayed through endnote references in Wikipedia, the Wikipedia system currently does not recognize that multiple citations may point to a single reference, leading to the creation of redundant reference list entries...These current limitations reduce the ability of Wikipedia readers to efficiently check the evidence behind data from the Wikidata knowledge base[19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Have looked at the paper which gives the example of interaction data being added to Ramelteon on En Wikipedia. But I am not seeing it there? I am happy to have what you appear to have build rolled out on En W based on Wikidata. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: The modified versions of the pages are stored: User:Tobias1984/Infobox drug test Ramelteon and User:Tobias1984/Infobox_drug_test. Personally, I think we should give it some more time with loading lists from Wikidata. The later example shows how the infobox explodes when a lot of interactions are stored on Wikidata. We still need a way to intelligently filter the potentially huge amount of data from Wikidata. Deploying only there, where we can improve the situation, might be the golden rule for Wikidata at the moment. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Few comments
1) refs go after punctuation
2) generics do not need caps
What about a collapse top collapse bottom template? I know these are not ideal but google puts stuff in their boxes under different tabs.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I would not mind the infoxbox to be more dynamic, and I am sure that the module will soon be able to handle formatting better. I would really like to lead the effort on this, but I currently have very little time on my hands. But the peple involved in the study, want to continue their work (which would include putting a lot of work in the Wikidata module). --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As a patient

So, I went to the doc yesterday with all the symptoms and rash, and received a one-time, prophylactic dose of doxy to "prevent" Lyme disease. Since I had never heard of such silliness before (in spite of extreme involvement with Lyme in the past), I came home and went straight to ... Wikipedia ... to see what we had to say on the matter of prophylaxis (since I know MastCell, TimVickers and others used to keep that article in order), and what I found was confusing at this version.

  1. This 2014 source is mentioned and cited numerous times in the LEAD, sourcing text that is included nowhere in the body of the article (breaching LEAD) about prophylaxis with a single dose of doxy. I do not have access to the full text of this source. But, since it seems that Shapiro is the same author behind the notion of single-dose prophylaxis (and because I have a bad experience with the NEJM printing faulty information about Tourette syndrome), I wonder about the evidence for this. Do we have more sources? I'm not finding them, but I don't have full journal access.
    Shapiro, ED (1 May 2014). "Clinical practice. Lyme disease". The New England journal of medicine. 370 (18): 1724–31. PMID 24785207.
  2. This 2012 source is used to cite most of the Treatment section, which as far as I can tell (did I miss it?), never discusses prophylaxis with a single dose of doxy. So the single-dose prophylaxis seems to be a new fangled thingie (which doesn't warm my heart or my joints).
    Wright WF, Riedel DJ, Talwani R, Gilliam BL; Riedel; Talwani; Gilliam (June 2012). "Diagnosis and management of Lyme disease". Am Fam Physician. 85 (11): 1086–93. PMID 22962880.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. This article is interesting (for me as patient anyway)). The available evidence to date supports the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of Lyme disease in endemic areas following an Ixodes tick bite. Pooled data from four placebo-controlled trials suggests that one case of Lyme disease is prevented for about every 50 patients who are treated with antibiotics. Seriously, prophylaxis to prevent one in 50? Allrighty then. As a patient, capable of doing the research, I still don't have the info I seek.
  4. The notion of single-dose prophylaxis was first introduced to the article in 2011, based on a primary study no less.
  5. Now, looking at the confusion beyond that we don't explore this in the Treatment section, we state in the lead:
    Following a bite, antibiotics are typically only recommended if the removed tick was full of blood. In this situation, a single dose of doxycycline may be recommended. ... If an infection develops, a number of antibiotics are effective, including doxycycline, amoxicillin, and cefuroxime.

Several problems with our phrasing. First, a tick is not even discovered in many cases. Second, antibiotics are recommended whenever there is an infection-- we clear that up later in the text, but this part in the lead is poorly phrased, to the point of misinfo. The text in the lead is open to misinterpretation about how to treat after a bite, in general.

So, just sayin', as a patient, Wikipedia let me down, and we should take care that we add information to the correct section, and then summarize to the LEAD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • actually im referring to Lyme_disease article (it took some time to identify all the references in question, therefore there might be more)...references 3,9,17,19,22,24,25,32-35,37,43,44,47-51,54,58,59,60,68,72,78,88,104,118,129,138,145,152,174,201 are non-MEDRS compliant.thank you (hope you get better soon)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Those numbers will unfortunately be useless the next time someone rearranges something or adds another. Instead of posting numbers here, may I suggest tagging them with {{medrs}}? (Only for inappropriate uses of primary sources or older sources, of course; the use of primary sources and/or older sources is not actually banned.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
those numbers are based on Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No, those numbers are based on the order that the citations are placed in the article. MEDRS has no views at all on the quality of any citation numbered "3", nor any citation number "9", nor 17, nor 19, nor any of the other numbers. MEDRS has views on the contents, not on their numbers. And I'm telling you that if someone adds or removes a citation—any citation, whether to a lousy blog or to an ideal review article—that your assessment about citation "138" will be useless to anyone who tries to find it, because what was "138" when you read the article will no longer be have a little blue clicky number that says "[138]" on it. If you want your extensive evaluation to have lasting value, then you need to mark the citations themselves, rather than putting a list of ephemeral numbers over here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
refer to my prior answer.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have access to Shapiro now, and IMO, we are giving undue (and unexplained) attention to single-dose prophylaxis in the lead (while not exploring it in the body of the article). But since I have a patient COI, I suggest others may want to clean up that article. (Personally, I think I should have been treated with a full course of antibiotics, but time will tell if my symptoms are better explained by the norovirus going around at the same time I got a bite in the woods ... hope my doctor isn't getting his info from Wikipedia.) I just wanted to highlight this as an example of the importance of not putting updates into the lead without fully discussing them in the body, and that our articles can be confusing to even the informed patient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I hope that you feel better soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Even if I do get Lyme from my foraging in the woods, uncovering a treasure trove of culinary delight on my own property may be worth it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose a field trip to SandyGeorgia's woods! WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This source [20] seems reliable, since it is a recent review article in a respectable journal. It summarizes guidelines by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, and it says that "Clinicians should not use a single 200 mg dose of doxycycline for Lyme disease prophylaxis", but says this is based on "very low-quality evidence". Everymorning talk 20:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, again! So, keeping in mind that most people don't know how to access reliable sources and secondary reviews as I/we do, we are handing out bad/undue/incomplete info in the lead of Lyme disease that could affect patient care. Curiously, my physician cited that organization (ILADS) when claiming there is a basis for single-dose prophylaxis. He was not going to be convinced otherwise because, you know, he read it on the internet :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I fixed it. thanks for calling that out. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, all (we do get on things fast :) I added the ILADS source, since it is free full text. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ILADS is the fringe/minority opinion organization that claims that "chronic lyme" exists and advocates long-term antibiotics for people they diagnose with it (which is a broad swath of people). we should not be elevating their recommendations in our main Lyme article or citing it like it mainstream opinion... Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ack, OK ... my bad :) But the plot thickens, and gets worse, because my doctor pulled up some database online as I was in his office, and then cited ILADS to me :/ Not a happy camper, here. I will have to email you even more (private) reasons why I find this all so troubling ... I will say publicly that we get it right on MEDRS ... even more than my darn doctor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. ILADS has a sharp-looking website, but they're not shy about promoting the bogus diagnosis of "chronic Lyme disease", nor about touting the link between chronic Lyme and the even-more-bogus diagnosis of "Morgellons disease". Here's a recent, execrable tweet from ILADS that's taking advantage of Joni Mitchell's mental health issues, for instance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks again ... TOAT, email me if you want to know from which medical org my doctor was quoting ILADS ... MEDRS gets it right :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for picking this up Sandy. The poor wording was my fault. Thanks to Jytdog for his improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Doc, you're entitled to a miss every now and then! Since I'm feeling no worse, either it was norovirus or something along with the bite, or the prophylaxis quackery worked.

Per WAID's proposed field trip, virtual dinner at my house! Now I have to go catch up on the citation thread with Boghog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

altering the DNA of human embryos./ unethical?

[21] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. It's similar to nuclear power and every other type of technology that is inherently non-ethical. Whether this should be allowed depends on the motives of the people doing it, not the technology itself. -A1candidate 18:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
notice that neither Nature nor Science decided to go with it and rejected publication?[22][23] [24]...(and NPR is not too happy [25])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
stupid, stupid, overhyping popular media is full of these headlines about "first genetically engineered human embryos". this is NOT the first paper where human embroyos were genetically modified. (see this equally stupid headline from Wired in 2008. what is "new" here is the use of CRISPR to do this. and the embryos used in the paper were not viable in any case. blech. double blech. blech. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
and this is why MEDRS talks about respecting secondary sources. yep. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
this is the ‎world’s first scientific paper on altering the DNA of human embryos, that is the difference...In a world first, Chinese scientists have reported editing the genomes of human embryos. The results are published1 in the online journal Protein & Cell and confirm widespread rumours that such experiments had been conducted — rumours that sparked a high-profile debate last month2, 3 about the ethical implications of such work.[26]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
CRISPR Sterics
editing yes, using CRISPR. that is what CRIPR does. different than transfecting and other forms of genetic modification. this public frenzy is so disheartening. what scientists do research-wise takes a lot of work to get to the clinic. and in this case, the scientists made super-sure the resulting embryos couldn't be used in IVF. just a lot of hype. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying this is not Genetic Engineering? The definition Wikipedia uses for Genetic Engineering is "the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology". If it is not Genetic Engineering, what is it? Please explain. David Tornheim (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Protein & Cell published a paper on CRISPR/Cas9 use for gene therapy in human embryos. An article in Nature states the paper looks "set to reignite the debate on human-embryo editing" - and the experiments are facing a backlash

Discussion on ITN: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Human embryos genetically modified for the first time -- Aronzak (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It's not just the popular media who says this is a first. George Q. Daley says that "I believe this is the first report of CRISPR/Cas9 applied to human pre-implantation embryos and as such the study is a landmark, as well as a cautionary tale," [27] This does seem significant with respect to bioethics. Everymorning talk 09:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
it is the first report of CRISPR being used on an embryo. It is not the first genetically modified embryo and that is what a lot of the popular press is saying. CRISPR is not the first genetic engineering technology - the issues have been around for a long time - they go back to the first days of biotechnology. see this from 1990. PMID 23072719 is a pretty recent review (2012) of science/law/ethics etc. I'll note that actual medical use of germline modification is illegal in most of the developed world. This is hysteria over basic science research. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Question--Should this be mentioned in the Genetic Engineering article? If not, why not? I will ask the same question at Genetic Engineering. David Tornheim (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

answer David Tornheim perhaps you should actually read the genetic engineering article before you pepper this board with questions about something that is already there. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Good. Although I monitor that article, I had not noticed these new events had been added. My bad. No need to be so condescending about it. I thought your "blech. double blech. blech." was a peremptory challenge to signal your intention to oppose any inclusion of the material discussed here into the Wikipedia articles--I am glad it is not. Too be honest, I still don't know what causes you to say "blech. double blech. blech." and why you appear to have such a strong aversion to what is being discussed here. Providing RS that gives a different story would be more helpful than giving your opinion. David Tornheim (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
you still haven't read the actual study have you? nor the content on it that is now in several places in Wikipedia. please stop having cows about things and actually pay attention to the sources. Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Please stop with your assumptions of "bad faith" and use of WP:Uncivil ad hominem attack of comparing my response to "having a cow". Please focus on the subject matter and not the person.David Tornheim (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
if it moos like a cow and walks like a cow, it must be a cow. and i will say it again - before you go ballistic and posting 5 times about something, please read the actual article and the relevant sources. you are the one acting solely on an assumption of bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Considering this event is just a tiny blip in the research world, I see no reason why it would be noteworthy. We generally don't report on research that does something that's largely already been done but just with a newer methodology. That's more for us scientists to geek out over within our disciplines, but isn't really encyclopedic in nature. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
this came out in Nature, rather interesting...CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technology holds great promise for discovering therapeutic targets in cancer and other diseases. Current screening strategies target CRISPR-CaS9-induced mutations to the 5' exons of candidate genes, but this approach often produces in-frame variants that retain functionality, which can obscure even strong genetic dependencies. Here we overcome this limitation by targeting CRISPR-CaS9 mutagenesis to exons encoding functional protein domains. This generates a higher proportion of null mutations and substantially increases the potency of negative selection. We also show that the magnitude of negative selection can be used to infer the functional importance of individual protein domains of interest. A screen of 192 chromatin regulatory domains in murine acute myeloid leukemia cells identifies six known drug targets and 19 additional dependencies. A broader application of this approach may allow comprehensive identification of protein domains that sustain cancer cells and are suitable for drug targeting.[28]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Candidal vulvovaginitis

A user is suggesting to rename this article "vaginal yeast infection". My initial instinct is that this would be an inaccurate description since the article is limited to candidiasis and does not discuss other fungal infections. the link to the discussion is above. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Ferguson I agree with you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree as well for the exact same reason. Candidal vulvovaginitis is a more specific term. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks

Now in main "wikipedia" space. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you for information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Drug-eluting stent

I don't have time to fix this now, but the article is very much out of date, cites no cochrane reviews (and there are many) are some (PMID 22972047; PMID 24833157; PMID 20464732 which is most important and now 5 years old) and appears to have been subject to a lot of editing by industry. tagged it and posting here for now. more to do, more to do....Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

will look (however as you indicated has quite a bit of unnecessary info/advertising)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Top En Medical Editors for 2014

Data is here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Stats/Top_English_medical_editors_2014 for EN. Also have data for all languages here [30] but article is a little big. This is of course thanks to the great work of Andrew G. West. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

great info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
For those who aren't aware, take the list with a pinch of salt. I appear in the top 100 thanks to a bunch of formatting and spelling corrections, but my only actual medical writing, as opposed to gnoming, has been on Cornish historical articles like Bal maiden where the medical aspects are generally fairly tangential. Mogism (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes this list is nothing more than what it states. It just lists the number of edits to the main space for medical articles (all of these edits count) and the number of bytes added / removed from these articles. It is not a perfect measure of authorship by any means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to belittle your edits Mogism. Gnoming matters too. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I notice the number of edits at the top of the table has increased on last year, which is good I suppose. As before these figures show starkly how dependent the project is on a few individuals, to whom we should all be extremely grateful! Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If you sort by content added, there are some scary trends (and we probably can't address all of them).

My numbers are low. I took most of 2014 off, because (in order of relevance) I was disgusted by the effect of student editing on medical content and how thinly we are stretched because of the time students take, our failure to have a prominent medical disclaimer on every medical article, and dealing with the ongoing quackery and POV (like in our cannabis articles, which have a real-life effect).

Then, one day ... innocently browsing the internet for health content for a family-related matter, I ended up at Alzheimer's disease, noted (sadly) that it should not be a Featured article, (because even our FAs are not where they should be, because We Cannot Keep Up), and fully expected to have my say and leave again.

I'm still here. Maybe only because I refuse to let students ruin what little bit of good content we have.

Sorry for taking advantage of this thread to soapbox. Well, not really sorry, but it sounds good :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia it is good having you back. Yes it often feels like an uphill battle. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If/when this table is regenerated for next year, the columns a column to indicate the % of the users edits that were medical related (i.e. is the editor specifically focused on medical articles) and/or account age might be useful. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

More data

This table listing all En articles by order of pageviews for the entire year. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages_En_2013a Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

understanding bias(part 2 of 3)/nejm

[31] came across this article, I deem it a good read. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa I read the article. It made me feel inspired to start these wiki-articles.
I feel like Wikipedia is on the right side of advocacy in remained separated from conflict of interest in medicine. I also think that Wikipedia is an outlet for medical providers and researchers who are entangled in financial obligations to have an outlet for getting the best information out to the public in a way that creates gradual change without direct confrontation with their funders. Thanks for sharing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thank you for your kind words, the moment I read the article it seemed important to post it here, (im glad some good has come of it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal

Hello. I've created a proposal to start WikiProject Women's health. If you have any thoughts about this proposal, feel free to join the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

good information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick question

SHould redirects be in any categories? Many thanks, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, provided the redirect is a notable term which may be more widely known than the target article title for some subpopulation of our readership. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Unusual WP:SPA

User talk:Park Lexington is clearly not new here and pretty much all their edits insert a link to the UNFPA article and a reference to a UNFPA source, and they're producing them at a decent speed. Trawling through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations didn't find a match. Multiple attempts (by others) to contact them on their talk page are proving unproductive (they've never made an edit outside of article space). Ideas? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

They have only been editing since May 6, 2015. They are mostly adding blocks of text word for word from the sources in question. I am not 100% sure if these sources are under a CC BY SA license. They might be.
They have not edited since most of the questions were left on their talk page. I think they could very likely be a new editor. Hopefully when they edit next time we can clear up confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hum appears I am mistaken. The work of UNFPA is not under an open license [32]. Likely we need to remove some of this editors changes. UNFPA is a decent source though if paraphrased. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick question2

A user reverted my removal of several categories on this article. I will go with whatever is the consensus. Thoughts please. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

right...so remember that the most important thing in an article is consensus, that you along with any other editor or editors are both in agreement, (ex. ive been on ebola virus epidemic in west Africa article for 8/9 months with the same 3 editors (though many, many editors have contributed)), you have to take it to the talk page for the benefit of the article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The real question is, is it appropriate to put any given allergen into categories such as "oral pathology" because it is capable of causing allergic reactions in the mouth and on the lips? If we did this for every potential allergen the categories would get v large indeed. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know. I think all these categories are inappropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_64&oldid=1077438955"