This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Amphetamine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frequently asked questions Q1: Lisdexamfetamine is mentioned in the article along with levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine. Is lisdexamfetamine (brand name: Vyvanse) a form of amphetamine?
A1: No. At the molecular level, lisdexamfetamine has the molecular structure of amphetamine coupled with the amino acid
lysine, making it chemically distinct from the amphetamine enantiomers (i.e., levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine).
[1]
Lisdexamfetamine has the chemical formula C15 H25 N3 O; [1] however, amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and levoamphetamine have the formula C9H13N. [2] Consequently, lisdexamfetamine is not an optical isomer of amphetamine like dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine. As an inactive prodrug, it simply has no effect on the human body until enzymes metabolize it into dextroamphetamine. [1] This is why it is covered in the article along with the enantiomers.
References
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Amphetamine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 3, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Amphetamine.
|
Revisions succeeding
this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Toolbox |
---|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is a source for transcluded sections in
Adderrall. Its a real house of cards -- reference definitions must be in certain spots, different sections are tagged with <noinclude
and one article or another is often broken because of problems. Is transclusion really the best way to build these articles? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 16:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
1. I just corrected the value for the fraction bound to 20%, according to the already linked source. Maybe they changed the value at some point. At the moment the source is DrugBank; section Protein binding: https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00182#pharmacology. For said parameter the reference on DrugBank is solely this article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00003088-200443030-00002. Would it not be better if this source was mentioned in the article instead of Drugbank?
2. I also cross-checked said 20% with other publications and it's about right. So I guess there is no point in adding additional sources to prove the same number?
PENDRAGON ( talk) 11:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
On of the image titles says "Pharmacodynamics of amphetamine in a dopamine neuron" there is no such thing as a dopamine neuron, it should be changed to dopaminergic neuron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihazevich ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Safety of Stimulant Medication Use in Cardiovascular and Arrhythmia Patients - American College of Cardiology
yo, stimulants are in fact cardio protective. has anyone given careful thought to this? The heart is a muscle. Muscles become stronger the more they work, The faster the heart beats the more oxygen is delivered. Blood circulates faster. these are good things. w/out preexisting heart conditions theres no issue… do marathon runners die prematurely? … i’ve taken these medications for decades - its only Vyvanese that has brought premature aging up - the 80 years before Vyvanese no one conclusively proved stimulants shorten people’s life spans. The truth is probnly that the way Vyvanese is metabolizedin the live by whatever enzynmee is it is in the liver that activates it causes long-term live damage and when your liver is gone - its over. Lastly speaking from personal experience Real Dexedrine or Adderall make my heart beat WAY faste than Vyvanese so that simple fact tells me this is to put it politely, highly questionable and to put it bluntly, bullshit . and if you drive a car on on overdrive but give extra attention to maintainihg it it will last long - its only if you aren’t healthy or dont maintauin your car in the first place that a issuew MAY come up. and people if you don’t know for god’s sake, if your skin doesn’t look good drink more water until you’re drinking 6liters a day. I bet crackheads who drink 6 liters of water a day have great skin! 72.143.21.46 ( talk) 07:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I am curious about what the policy is for including physicochemical data for pharmaceutical drugs. The box in this page gives the data for amphetamine base racemate, yet this is not a form that is available on the market, legal or illegal. There are of course many different salts and derivatives of the compound with different chemical structures and physical properties. Is it standard to give the base form of amines? How about tertiary amines, which have no stable base form and potentially different counterions? Would it make more sense to include all the common salts? Or perhaps have another page dedicated to it? Kilgore T ( talk) 13:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Má huáng 1015 ( talk) 22:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
i think it would be better if the image that shows the structure of amphetamine in 2D would be replaced with the image that Wiktionary uses the reason why i think this change should be made is the image from wiktionary shows that there are two enantiomers i do want to make it clear that i don't know a lot about chemistry unfortunately https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amphetamine#/media/File:Amphetamine-2D-skeletal.svg
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please either remove "There is no evidence that amphetamine is directly neurotoxic in humans" or change to "The neurotoxicity in humans under therapeutic doses is currently not understood" as there is no basis to sustain the current sentence using current citations.
"Amphetamine". United States National Library of Medicine – Toxicology Data Network. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. Archived from the original on 2 October 2017. Retrieved 2 October 2017. Direct toxic damage to vessels seems unlikely because of the dilution that occurs before the drug reaches the cerebral circulation.
This citation is talking about vascular toxicity in the brain, rather than neurotransmitter toxicity (neurotoxicity), thus can't sustain the above statement.
Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). "Chapter 15: Reinforcement and addictive disorders". In Sydor A, Brown RY (eds.). Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 370. ISBN 9780071481274. Unlike cocaine and amphetamine, methamphetamine is directly toxic to midbrain dopamine neurons.
This citation is a secondary source with no basis on research.
Throughout my search for alternative sources, I have not found any concrete research into neurotoxic effects in humans rather than lab animals at all. Review of the existing literature links to effects in humans being not understood
Thus I believe that the sentence as it is currently written in the article leads readers to false conclusions that it's safe to take amphetamines in therapeutic doses as there is research with no evidence, rather than that there is no research at all. Ritave ( talk) 16:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Seppi333: I've dug into this subject a bit ( 131 MEDRS refs in the last decade) and found a few interesting ones which I suggest you check out. A 2020 review states that the neurotoxicity of amphetamine increases the risk of Parkinon's severalfold after exposure, but is silent about dose. Some of the cited sources in the review apply this to therapeutic doses as well. Anything of substance in your opinion? Wretchskull ( talk) 17:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Seppi's wall-of-text response
|
---|
|
The molecular studies show that amphetamine upregulates α-syn in substantia nigra which accumulates leading to aggregation, which in turn damages neurons [191] contributing to the Parkinson’s-like behavior [199].- seemed like a bombshell until I looked at the citations and realized the authors are discussing evidence involving methamphetamine; I'm not sure how the authors and peer reviewers missed this. The only evidence they actually provided about amphetamine from a research paper is that amphetamine and methamphetamine both bind to N-terminus of intrinsically unstructured α-synuclein, which induces a folded conformation; in turn, this increases the likelihood of protein misfolding and aggregation. The fact that amphetamine and methamphetamine have similar effects on body temperature and similar mechanisms for causing it would seem to suggest that amphetamine would also increase α-synuclein expression through cerebral hyperpyrexia. Taken together, it seems plausible that amphetamine neurotoxicity could increase PD risk. The relationship between methamphetamine and PD is well-established in humans, but, the evidence supporting this relationship for amphetamine is entirely based on in vitro evidence of α-synuclein protein binding and its shared mechanisms of neurotoxicity with methamphetamine. So, there's basically no evidence in humans from a retrospective study to support that claim; it's just a well-founded suspicion at this point. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn’t “amine”, located in the very first paragraph, be transformed into a link?
Is there a reason it hasn’t? HockeyCowboy ( talk) 09:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Dexedream: I apologize for undoing what you wrote, but a lot of the content you introduced to the lead section is way too technical per MOS:INTRO. Also, the article originally had a 4-paragraph, 20-sentence lead section, which was already above average for a featured article, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. The lead looks to be about ~50% longer (24 vs 16 line breaks) on my screen with your changes relative to the original version, which pushes it well outside the guidelines.
I don't see a problem with introducing this content with citations in the body of the article, though. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change dependance/abuse liability from "moderate" to "high" as per the cited reference (Stahl) P3nt0th41 ( talk) 04:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
•High abuse potential, Schedule II drug
•Patients may develop tolerance, psychological dependence
Why does this page list increased cognitive performance and increased muscle strength as effects? There have been no specifically conclusive, academically acceptable or even scientifically reasonable studies done to show that either of these effects occur in a significant enough portion of the general population to include them as "effects". There have, however, been studies to the contrary. 74.140.151.89 ( talk) 20:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
In this edit, I included cognitive disengagement syndrome as a condition treatable by amphetamine. It was redacted here on the basis of an absent secondary source and it being lisdexamphetamine.
First, contrary to the statement, I believe I have cited a secondary source: the International Consensus Statement on CDS. It is a scientific consensus, analysis and evaluation/review of the scientific literature including the primary evidence of lisdexamphetamine as a treatment. As the WP:Secondary states: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources".
Second, lisdexamphetamine is a valid derivative of amphetamine. As stated in the article: "currently, pharmaceutical amphetamine is prescribed as racemic amphetamine, Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or the inactive prodrug lisdexamfetamine".
Thus I fail to see the issue here. Please discuss. Thanks. Димитрий Улянов Иванов ( talk) 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
By the way, diagnostic manuals are not leading the research, but follows it and often a decade or two behind- WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not lead either. Wikipedia reports it if only it is recognized by mainstream standardized diagnostic manuals. You cannot use ongoing research as a fact, even if a group of researchers agree on a consensus. Until it is established, by that I mean, recognized by standardized diagnostic manuals, it cannot be included on Wikipedia as a distinct medical condition (like CRYSTAL says, Wikipedia does not predict future so you cannot write it in Wikipedia's voice).Your own source states,
Much work remains to further clarify its nature (e.g., transdiagnostic factor, separate disorder, diagnostic specifier) [...].
the condition not being recognised in diagnostic manuals does not preclude it from being a distinct syndrome- Yes it does, at least here.
since it's publication uses the CDS term on the basis of this consensus that I can locate- Anyone can go to Google Scholar and type in "cognitive disengagement syndrome" to get all. That's not the point.
does not violate WP:WEIGHT in the slightest- Did you even read the WP:LEAD I linked? UNDUE and WEIGHT I mentioned is related to this.
And on what basis are you suggesting sources cannot specify a derivative of amphetamine?- WP:SYNTH, you cannot combine one source and another and write a novel synthesis. The source must state amphetamines. I say this because the source itself is primarily dependent on the clinical trial source (it merely reports lisdexamphetamine trials).I think you misunderstood by what I mean by advocacy. I meant, it is a conclusion of a working group proposing to replace the "SCT" with "CDS". Like I said, just because they say "it meets threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome" does not mean it is yet a distinct syndrome (which your source states in the very next sentence). -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 22:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Much work remains to further clarify its nature (e.g., transdiagnostic factor, separate disorder, diagnostic specifier) [...]." + "Like I said, just because they say "it meets threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome" does not mean it is yet a distinct syndrome (which your source states in the very next sentence)"
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Amphetamine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frequently asked questions Q1: Lisdexamfetamine is mentioned in the article along with levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine. Is lisdexamfetamine (brand name: Vyvanse) a form of amphetamine?
A1: No. At the molecular level, lisdexamfetamine has the molecular structure of amphetamine coupled with the amino acid
lysine, making it chemically distinct from the amphetamine enantiomers (i.e., levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine).
[1]
Lisdexamfetamine has the chemical formula C15 H25 N3 O; [1] however, amphetamine, dextroamphetamine, and levoamphetamine have the formula C9H13N. [2] Consequently, lisdexamfetamine is not an optical isomer of amphetamine like dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine. As an inactive prodrug, it simply has no effect on the human body until enzymes metabolize it into dextroamphetamine. [1] This is why it is covered in the article along with the enantiomers.
References
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Amphetamine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 3, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Amphetamine.
|
Revisions succeeding
this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
|
Toolbox |
---|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is a source for transcluded sections in
Adderrall. Its a real house of cards -- reference definitions must be in certain spots, different sections are tagged with <noinclude
and one article or another is often broken because of problems. Is transclusion really the best way to build these articles? --
Mikeblas (
talk) 16:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
1. I just corrected the value for the fraction bound to 20%, according to the already linked source. Maybe they changed the value at some point. At the moment the source is DrugBank; section Protein binding: https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB00182#pharmacology. For said parameter the reference on DrugBank is solely this article: https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00003088-200443030-00002. Would it not be better if this source was mentioned in the article instead of Drugbank?
2. I also cross-checked said 20% with other publications and it's about right. So I guess there is no point in adding additional sources to prove the same number?
PENDRAGON ( talk) 11:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
On of the image titles says "Pharmacodynamics of amphetamine in a dopamine neuron" there is no such thing as a dopamine neuron, it should be changed to dopaminergic neuron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihazevich ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Safety of Stimulant Medication Use in Cardiovascular and Arrhythmia Patients - American College of Cardiology
yo, stimulants are in fact cardio protective. has anyone given careful thought to this? The heart is a muscle. Muscles become stronger the more they work, The faster the heart beats the more oxygen is delivered. Blood circulates faster. these are good things. w/out preexisting heart conditions theres no issue… do marathon runners die prematurely? … i’ve taken these medications for decades - its only Vyvanese that has brought premature aging up - the 80 years before Vyvanese no one conclusively proved stimulants shorten people’s life spans. The truth is probnly that the way Vyvanese is metabolizedin the live by whatever enzynmee is it is in the liver that activates it causes long-term live damage and when your liver is gone - its over. Lastly speaking from personal experience Real Dexedrine or Adderall make my heart beat WAY faste than Vyvanese so that simple fact tells me this is to put it politely, highly questionable and to put it bluntly, bullshit . and if you drive a car on on overdrive but give extra attention to maintainihg it it will last long - its only if you aren’t healthy or dont maintauin your car in the first place that a issuew MAY come up. and people if you don’t know for god’s sake, if your skin doesn’t look good drink more water until you’re drinking 6liters a day. I bet crackheads who drink 6 liters of water a day have great skin! 72.143.21.46 ( talk) 07:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I am curious about what the policy is for including physicochemical data for pharmaceutical drugs. The box in this page gives the data for amphetamine base racemate, yet this is not a form that is available on the market, legal or illegal. There are of course many different salts and derivatives of the compound with different chemical structures and physical properties. Is it standard to give the base form of amines? How about tertiary amines, which have no stable base form and potentially different counterions? Would it make more sense to include all the common salts? Or perhaps have another page dedicated to it? Kilgore T ( talk) 13:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Má huáng 1015 ( talk) 22:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
i think it would be better if the image that shows the structure of amphetamine in 2D would be replaced with the image that Wiktionary uses the reason why i think this change should be made is the image from wiktionary shows that there are two enantiomers i do want to make it clear that i don't know a lot about chemistry unfortunately https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amphetamine#/media/File:Amphetamine-2D-skeletal.svg
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please either remove "There is no evidence that amphetamine is directly neurotoxic in humans" or change to "The neurotoxicity in humans under therapeutic doses is currently not understood" as there is no basis to sustain the current sentence using current citations.
"Amphetamine". United States National Library of Medicine – Toxicology Data Network. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. Archived from the original on 2 October 2017. Retrieved 2 October 2017. Direct toxic damage to vessels seems unlikely because of the dilution that occurs before the drug reaches the cerebral circulation.
This citation is talking about vascular toxicity in the brain, rather than neurotransmitter toxicity (neurotoxicity), thus can't sustain the above statement.
Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2009). "Chapter 15: Reinforcement and addictive disorders". In Sydor A, Brown RY (eds.). Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for Clinical Neuroscience (2nd ed.). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 370. ISBN 9780071481274. Unlike cocaine and amphetamine, methamphetamine is directly toxic to midbrain dopamine neurons.
This citation is a secondary source with no basis on research.
Throughout my search for alternative sources, I have not found any concrete research into neurotoxic effects in humans rather than lab animals at all. Review of the existing literature links to effects in humans being not understood
Thus I believe that the sentence as it is currently written in the article leads readers to false conclusions that it's safe to take amphetamines in therapeutic doses as there is research with no evidence, rather than that there is no research at all. Ritave ( talk) 16:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Seppi333: I've dug into this subject a bit ( 131 MEDRS refs in the last decade) and found a few interesting ones which I suggest you check out. A 2020 review states that the neurotoxicity of amphetamine increases the risk of Parkinon's severalfold after exposure, but is silent about dose. Some of the cited sources in the review apply this to therapeutic doses as well. Anything of substance in your opinion? Wretchskull ( talk) 17:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Seppi's wall-of-text response
|
---|
|
The molecular studies show that amphetamine upregulates α-syn in substantia nigra which accumulates leading to aggregation, which in turn damages neurons [191] contributing to the Parkinson’s-like behavior [199].- seemed like a bombshell until I looked at the citations and realized the authors are discussing evidence involving methamphetamine; I'm not sure how the authors and peer reviewers missed this. The only evidence they actually provided about amphetamine from a research paper is that amphetamine and methamphetamine both bind to N-terminus of intrinsically unstructured α-synuclein, which induces a folded conformation; in turn, this increases the likelihood of protein misfolding and aggregation. The fact that amphetamine and methamphetamine have similar effects on body temperature and similar mechanisms for causing it would seem to suggest that amphetamine would also increase α-synuclein expression through cerebral hyperpyrexia. Taken together, it seems plausible that amphetamine neurotoxicity could increase PD risk. The relationship between methamphetamine and PD is well-established in humans, but, the evidence supporting this relationship for amphetamine is entirely based on in vitro evidence of α-synuclein protein binding and its shared mechanisms of neurotoxicity with methamphetamine. So, there's basically no evidence in humans from a retrospective study to support that claim; it's just a well-founded suspicion at this point. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn’t “amine”, located in the very first paragraph, be transformed into a link?
Is there a reason it hasn’t? HockeyCowboy ( talk) 09:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Dexedream: I apologize for undoing what you wrote, but a lot of the content you introduced to the lead section is way too technical per MOS:INTRO. Also, the article originally had a 4-paragraph, 20-sentence lead section, which was already above average for a featured article, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. The lead looks to be about ~50% longer (24 vs 16 line breaks) on my screen with your changes relative to the original version, which pushes it well outside the guidelines.
I don't see a problem with introducing this content with citations in the body of the article, though. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change dependance/abuse liability from "moderate" to "high" as per the cited reference (Stahl) P3nt0th41 ( talk) 04:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
•High abuse potential, Schedule II drug
•Patients may develop tolerance, psychological dependence
Why does this page list increased cognitive performance and increased muscle strength as effects? There have been no specifically conclusive, academically acceptable or even scientifically reasonable studies done to show that either of these effects occur in a significant enough portion of the general population to include them as "effects". There have, however, been studies to the contrary. 74.140.151.89 ( talk) 20:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
In this edit, I included cognitive disengagement syndrome as a condition treatable by amphetamine. It was redacted here on the basis of an absent secondary source and it being lisdexamphetamine.
First, contrary to the statement, I believe I have cited a secondary source: the International Consensus Statement on CDS. It is a scientific consensus, analysis and evaluation/review of the scientific literature including the primary evidence of lisdexamphetamine as a treatment. As the WP:Secondary states: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources".
Second, lisdexamphetamine is a valid derivative of amphetamine. As stated in the article: "currently, pharmaceutical amphetamine is prescribed as racemic amphetamine, Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or the inactive prodrug lisdexamfetamine".
Thus I fail to see the issue here. Please discuss. Thanks. Димитрий Улянов Иванов ( talk) 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
By the way, diagnostic manuals are not leading the research, but follows it and often a decade or two behind- WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not lead either. Wikipedia reports it if only it is recognized by mainstream standardized diagnostic manuals. You cannot use ongoing research as a fact, even if a group of researchers agree on a consensus. Until it is established, by that I mean, recognized by standardized diagnostic manuals, it cannot be included on Wikipedia as a distinct medical condition (like CRYSTAL says, Wikipedia does not predict future so you cannot write it in Wikipedia's voice).Your own source states,
Much work remains to further clarify its nature (e.g., transdiagnostic factor, separate disorder, diagnostic specifier) [...].
the condition not being recognised in diagnostic manuals does not preclude it from being a distinct syndrome- Yes it does, at least here.
since it's publication uses the CDS term on the basis of this consensus that I can locate- Anyone can go to Google Scholar and type in "cognitive disengagement syndrome" to get all. That's not the point.
does not violate WP:WEIGHT in the slightest- Did you even read the WP:LEAD I linked? UNDUE and WEIGHT I mentioned is related to this.
And on what basis are you suggesting sources cannot specify a derivative of amphetamine?- WP:SYNTH, you cannot combine one source and another and write a novel synthesis. The source must state amphetamines. I say this because the source itself is primarily dependent on the clinical trial source (it merely reports lisdexamphetamine trials).I think you misunderstood by what I mean by advocacy. I meant, it is a conclusion of a working group proposing to replace the "SCT" with "CDS". Like I said, just because they say "it meets threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome" does not mean it is yet a distinct syndrome (which your source states in the very next sentence). -- WikiLinuz ( talk) 22:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Much work remains to further clarify its nature (e.g., transdiagnostic factor, separate disorder, diagnostic specifier) [...]." + "Like I said, just because they say "it meets threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome" does not mean it is yet a distinct syndrome (which your source states in the very next sentence)"