This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
This article could really use some significant simplification of language.
Had placed the effects in the lead before a discussion of which neurotransmitters it effects in an effort to make the beginning easier to understand and relevant to the general population. [1]
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Pppery: I realize that you mean well with your recent edits, but these have introduced a lot of paragraph whitespaces, additions of intentionally omitted/noincluded content (mainly hatnotes and some content in the OD section), and missing sections in the target articles (2 in the Adderall article). The LST method of transclusion isn't better or worse than the non-labeled method (as described in WP:SELTRANS) which this article uses. They're completely interchangeable methods of selective transclusion, so I don't really see the benefit of converting the source markup to the LST method. Frietjes also attempted to convert the current selective transclusion markup to LST a while back, but ended up introducing transclusion errors as well.
I'm going to go ahead and revert the markup back to the non-labeled transclusion version since this produces the same section transclusions as the LST method after correcting the current errors. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
<onlyinclude>
method introduces potentially confusing template and parser function syntax into the wikicode of an article, where as the LST <section begin=name />...<section end=name />
looks much clearer and in some cases (where the {{#section-h}}
parser function can be used) isn't even necessary. Secondly, if you forget to specify which section to include (or didn't know that selective transclusion was being used in the first place) (resulting in {{
Amphetamine}}, it is counterintuitive to have all of the selectively transcludable material shown without any kind of break. Using LST in this case would result in the entire article being shown, as one would expect when transcluding something.The following subsections are about a more complicated way to make selective transclusion without using the extension.
{{
if pagename}}
templates. I agree that it's probably easier for editors who are unfamiliar with templates to create selective transclusions with the LST method though.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 17:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
<section>
tags should be clear enough to anyone who has the word
Section (typography) in their vocabulary.@
Seppi333:On the topic of treating articles as templates, it's much clearer to me to see the code {{
FOSB addiction table}}
compared to {{:FOSB}}
. The former clearly is some sort of table related to
FOSB, where as the lattter example, transcluding an article, gives no indication of what is being transcluded. Your third sentence about template vandalism is also false -
recent changes patrollers will catch most vandalism - and to them it doesn't matter whether the vandalism goes to an article or to a template.
Pppery (
talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
addiction glossary}}
which has 3 watchlister reverts vs 2 page patrollers who never edited the page before
[2]. Oh wait. That was a counterexample. And it's a good one for demonstrating you're wrong about the significance of watchlisters too because the number of watchlisters is really small on that page. Anyway, this thread is so off-topic by now that it's not worth keeping an open discussion under the heading.{{
Psychostimulant addiction}}
, {{
Amphetamine pharmacodynamics}}
, {{
Amphetamine pharmacokinetics}}
, and {{
Catecholamine and trace amine biosynthesis}}
(Note to self: this syntax can't be added directly to this article because it will bork the selective transclusions; it has to be added to the templates).
{{
Annotated image 4}}
to add this functionality to all AI4-templated images (will need to simultaneously remove this table syntax from the above 4 templates, {{
Glycolysis summary}}
, the AI4 templates using
File:HMB synthesis.svg in
β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid#Synthesis and
β-methylbutyric acid#Uses, and
any other AI4-templated images that are currently nested within a wikitable when updating this functionality).{{
AI4}}
.Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Switch statement options for table alignment
|
---|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amphetamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Garzfoth: I noticed that you wanted to go through and WP:V the text cited by this ref, based upon your edit summary from special:diff/720255246/720433631. I hosted a lot of paywalled refs on my google site a while ago. The Goodman & Gilman's ref is hosted here. The highlighted sentences in that reference support the statements that are cited by that ref in this article.
In case you care to check any others, most of the other paywalled refs that are cited in this article are hosted on
this webpage. The file names on that page correspond to the reference name defined in quotes in the source code, as in: <ref name="file name">{{citation template goes here}}</ref>
.
The named reference for the Goodman & Gilman's textbook was defined as "Westfall" in the source code (i.e., <ref name="Westfall">
), so the ref is hosted on the google page under that file name.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 20:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Seppi333: The second sentence of the medical section says this:
Long-term amphetamine exposure in some animal species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage
Should this be qualified with "at some doses" or "sufficiently high doses"? And isn't "can" a more concise and direct, and less definite (doesn't imply 100% reliability), way of phrasing "is known to"? Exercisephys ( talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Amphetamine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm an addiction psychiatrist and a subject expert on ADHD and addiction. The phrasing of the cognitive enhancing effect of amphetamine in this article is WAY too strong. The articles cited are primarily for animal models, not human cognitive performance. There is actually a LACK of research results in human cognitive performance.
Sluox ( talk) 14:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Amphetamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amphetamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Temperature classification | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Note: The difference between fever and hyperthermia is the underlying mechanism. Different sources have different cut-offs for fever, hyperthermia and hyperpyrexia. | ||||||||||||
@ Doc James: Should I describe " core body temperature ≥ 40 °C" as hyperthermia, "severe hyperthermia", or hyperpyrexia? The ref that cites that text in the Amphetamine#Toxicity and psychosis section calls a core temperature over 40 °C "hyperthermia", but our articles on hyperthermia and fever (which hyperpyrexia redirects to) classifies core temperature ≥ 40 °C or ≥ 41.0 °C as "hyperpyrexia", via the transcluded template shown on the right.
Hyperthermia and hyperpyrexia are respectively listed as mild and severe OD symptoms in this article. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Body temperature is maintained within the range 36.5-37.5 °C. It is lowest in the early morning and highest in the afternoon.
Dantrolene may also be associated with improved survival and reduced complications, especially in patients with extreme (≥ 42 °C) or severe (≥ 40 °C) hyperpyrexia
Despite the myriad of complications associated with heat illness, an elevation of core temperature above 41.0 °C (often referred to as fever or hyperpyrexia) is the most widely recognized symptom of this syndrome.
I can appreciate a complex subject, but the lede has some readability issues for a general audience (and too for a FA). My quick two cents, if this hasn't already been discussed to death somewhere, is that "enantiomers" can be better explained in prose as a technical/jargon term. I could attempt a shot at this, but I'm thinking more like linking "mirror image stereoisomers" to "enantiomers" and either putting the term in parentheses or introducing it some other way. Similarly, do CNS and ADHD (the acronyms) need to be mentioned in the lede? The acronyms are mentioned below at first mention whereafter they are actually invoked as acronyms, but the acronyms don't appear as second time in the lede, so a bit superfluous. Thirdly, with the sourcing footnotes—I think this style has its uses and is certainly cleaner than throwing a load of footnotes into the paragraph, but it would be nice if there was some indication as to what facts are available in each source. A lot of work goes into verification so a little hand-holding here would go a long way. In historian footnotes, for example, the author may explain what sources are most pertinent in the footnote, as in "Read X or Y for general background. For more on its treatment applications, see Z, Q, A." And so on. Also, wouldn't it be worth prioritizing the cultural uses of the stimulant closer to the top of the lede? Perhaps this is my topic ignorance showing, but I imagine it's more important for readers to get a solid definition of how amphetamines are used in society and how they function well before hitting multiple terms of jargon or being linked to its chemical compound information. I see that a lot of love has gone into this article, so commendations all around—just some extra feedback in case anyone is listening and interested. czar 06:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Amphetamine properly refers to a specific chemical, the racemic free base, which is equal parts of the two enantiomers, levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine, in their pure amine forms. However, the term is frequently used informally to refer to any combination of the enantiomers, or to either of them alone.) is simply a summary of a sentence in the body of the article or - in the case of 1 sentence - a subarticle (the clause about being a euphoriant and aphrodisiac is covered in history and culture of substituted amphetamines). Consequently, the lead sentences could also be verified by simply looking at the sources that cite the analogous statements that are covered in the body.
@
Materialscientist:
This revision is the revision at the time this article was promoted to FA status. As is evident, a number of the quotes in the
article as of today were there when it was promoted - very little has changed since then (Edit: after looking through the source, a few of the longer quotes from the FA revision, particularly the ones related to ΔFosB, were censored a while back). The consensus to include every single one of those quotes is established by the promotion of that revision of this article to FA status. Hence, to remove all of the quotes that were already in the article at the time of the FA promotion, you need to get consensus to remove them. I'm actually fine with cutting down the size of the longer quotes that are in the article, but I'm rather adamantly opposed to simply deleting every quote simply because you don't like reference quotes.
Moreover, I asked you nicely on your talk page to simply censor quotes that you find too lengthy instead of delete them outright. You've simply ignored my request even though censoring and deleting the quotes produce the exact same output when the source is rendered as a web page. I don't see what the issue is here with honoring my request. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Seppi333: Seppi, what section(if any) do you think that this source could be placed along with the apparent relationship between the speed and magnitude of DA release and the intensity of reward and locomotor stimulation. Thanks Petergstrom ( talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
As indicated above, it is the combination of the rapid rate of increase and magnitude of effect that accounts for the powerful stimulant effects of amphetamine."
Petergstrom ( talk) 03:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)The kinetics of d-amphetamine when taken orally make it less rewarding (pleasurable) than cocaine or methamphetamine. Cocaine, whether snorted or smoked as ‘crack’ in particular, enters the brain very quickly, and appears even to be concentrated in the brain relative to plasma; this explains the high rewarding potential of this drug: faster brain entry leads to a greater ‘high’.
The lethal amphetamine dose is 20 to 25 mg/kg. For a regular person this could be about 1.6 grams. Tolerance can lead to up to 15g being survived. [1]
Benjamin ( talk) 05:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
References
I recently updated {{
AI4}}
to address a rendering issue on mobile browsers (i.e., when viewed on a mobile browser, the right side of the annotated images in this article would be cut off due to their large widths; this no longer happens). If anyone sees any abnormal layout issues while viewing this article on a mobile device or desktop browser, I'd appreciate feedback on that.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 12:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The "Amphetamines: Potent Recreational Drug of Abuse" article which was published in the Journal of Addiction Research and Therapy plagiarizes a massive amount text (i.e., over 20 paragraphs) from this Wikipedia article by republishing the text (much of which was superficially modified) without attribution, which is required by the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Since the text of this Wikipedia article is only available under that Creative Commons copyright license, the republication of article text from amphetamine without attribution in this journal article is copyright infringement. Wikipedia editors own the copyright for their contributions to Wikipedia (under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license), so if you've made contributions to this article prior to March 10, 2017 [note 1] in the " Side effects", " Overdose", or " History, society, and culture" sections, or in the 1st paragraph of the " Chemistry" section, the authors of this journal article are infringing upon your copyright.
Consequently, I recently notified the editorial staff of the journal that published this journal article and OMICS Publishing Group (NB: the journal is part of OMICS) about said copyright infringement. I also notified ResearchGate since the authors of the journal article uploaded the full text of their article to that website on this page. So far, I've only received a response from ResearchGate; they promptly removed the full text article from their website and left only the abstract in place, since the abstract doesn't contain any copyrighted text from Wikipedia or copyrighted images from Wikimedia Commons.
I'm hoping to get the journal article retracted or retracted and republished with corrections (i.e., with appropriate attribution for the copyrighted content from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons); however, I'm not sure at this point if the editorial staff of the journal or OMICS will take action. If they don't respond to my initial notice of copyright infringement or subsequent notices (i.e., a follow-up reminder about the issue 1 week from now, then a cease and desist letter after another week), I'm going to submit a DMCA takedown notice to the appropriate entities to get this link taken down by their online service provider. Also, I'm not sure if that academic journal publishes a paper version of their articles; if it does, legal action is probably the only recourse if they're not willing to resolve this issue of their own volition. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Was this just a fault of the publisher? Another approach would be to notify the academic departments of the universities of the paper's authors, particularly the lead author. This is academically deplorable and any reputable university will act, even several years past. That the material came from Wikipedia (sadly) will may also raise issues.
I have experienced this unattributed reuse with a non-scientific article and am quite disturbed by it. I am especially angered with unattributed use of graphics which Seppi333 created and/or substantially improved. These comprehensive images are memorable, and now one could mistakenly assume Wikipedia lifted them from that article. I see this as a crime against both honest scientists and honest Wikipedians. Forgive my rant. —
βox73
(৳alk) 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Above Seppi333 writes "I should point out that neither of the medical FAs I've written use prescriptive language that isn't attributed in the same sentence to the cited source":
Mostly your medical FAs have been about pharmaceutical compounds, which can be described objectively and factually. As soon as we start talking about people, humans, things get messy and less clear. What is abuse? What is optimal? What is safe? All just opinions. I'm not raising these points so you must go fix those articles, but just to show that it is actually hard. And we need to apply some common sense rather than dogma. -- Colin° Talk 07:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
As the title, I think it will enhance the readability of this article, making it even perfect. =) -- It's gonna be awesome!# Talk♬ 14:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't read through the whole prescribing information sheet for Mydaysis, but this "new" drug looks like it's a near perfect clone of Adderall XR with an almost trivial difference in pharmacomkinetics (i.e., the mean plasma concentrations of d-amphetamine over time from Mydayis relative to Adderall XR diverge slightly after 4 hours and converge at 10 hours).
Anyway, I was wondering which article others thought Mydayis should redirect to: Adderall or amphetamine? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Box73: I'm curious to know what you think. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it be called Dextroamphetamine/Amphetamine? That's a common generic name, and it fits both mixed salts and liquid formulations. 74.70.36.141 ( talk) 17:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Not really relevant anymore
|
---|
I figured I should mention here that I've just created an edit notice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/Amphetamine; this notice appears at the top of the page when editing this article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Amphetamine&action=edit). There have been several instances in the past few months where an edit completely borked the 3 pages where this article is transcluded, so I've covered this in the edit notice. Since I copied the edit notice template from Template:Editnotices/Page/Parkinson's disease, I also included the part from that template about discussing significant changes to the text/images on the talk page before making them in the article. If anyone has any suggestions for changes to the edit notice for this page, please let me know. I'm open to modifying it. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 02:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
|
I just updated the selective transclusion syntax in amphetamine, adderall, lisdexamfetamine, and dextroamphetamine to a newer method that circumvents the issue that I described in the collapse tab. I've cut the paragraph about selective transclusions in the edit notice since it's no longer possible for template syntax errors in this article to massively bork the articles that receive section transclusions from this one. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI: I'm going to remove the grouped end-of-paragraph references in the lead and replace them with the end-of-sentence citation format that was used in
beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid at some point in the next 2-3 weeks years. If you object to this, you should probably say so now. I'll be highly disinclined to revert the citation style back to a grouped references after working on this due to the amount of time it'll take me to re-cite the lead.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
There are two articles on wikipedia mentioning 1887 for two contradictory ideas about amphetamine: synthesis ( /info/en/?search=History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines)
and
discovery ( /info/en/?search=Amphetamine)
I suggest modifying the main page ( /info/en/?search=Amphetamine) with the sentence:
Amphetamine was first synthesized in 1887 in Germany by Romanian chemist Lazăr Edeleanu who named it phenylisopropylamine. ( /info/en/?search=History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.158.212 ( talk) 13:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
This is what the beginning of this page looks like on my Samsung Galaxy S7.
The {{ nowrap}}ping of the full name causes the lead to break when viewed vertically. When viewed horizontally, there is enough space between the left border and the infobox, and the lead appears normally.
If nowrap is removed, the sentence would wrap right after " alpha-", which solves the issue (at least on my phone). Is there any particular reason why nowrap is used here? Which other articles would be affected by this? Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 06:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Lead text:
Amphetamine, the first psychoactive prescription drug, is one member of a family of molecules derived from ephedrine. In 1885, the Japanese organic chemist, Nagai Nagayoshi isolated ephedrine from the Ephedra sinica plant and then developed a method for ephedrine synthesis. (Ephedra spp., known as má huáng (麻黄), had been used as a stimulant and anti-asthmatic since the Han dynasty.) In 1887, the Romanian chemist Lazar Edeleanu, beginning with ephedrine, discovered a method for synthesizing amphetamine. The pharmacological properties of amphetamine went unrecognized until 1929, when the American chemist, Gordon Alles, had himself injected with 50 mg of amphetamine, noting that it caused his heart rate and blood pressure to increase, and that it also had psychostimulant properties.[36]
@ Sbelknap: The text I've colored in red isn't really correct – I'm assuming you're confusing amphetamine with methamphetamine here since meth was first synthesized from ephedrine by Nagai Nagayoshi. I'm not sure what Edeleanu used as a reactant, but it couldn't have been ephedrine since the reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine yields methamphetamine ( [4]). Synthesizing amphetamine via the analogous method involves the reduction of norephedrine/norpseudoephedrine ( [5]). I can't read German, but in the event you can, this [1] is the paper Edeleanu published in 1887 on the synthesis of amphetamine. I'm sure it's mentioned in there somewhere.
As for the text in green, these statements are relevant to and suitable for the lead of History and culture of substituted amphetamines since the body of that article already mentions the isolation of ephedrine by Nagai (NB: per MOS:INTRO, every statement in the lead should be a summary of content from the body of an article; so, if a statement in the lead isn't repeated in the body of an article, it needs to be added to the body or removed from the lead). Consequently, I've added these sentences to that article's lead.
As for the underlined clauses, including this material in the amphetamine article is fine with me; however, these assertions need to be added with a supporting reference since featured articles are required to be fully compliant with the WP:Verifiability policy. Unfortunately, I don't remember if either assertion was mentioned in any of the references that currently cite this article, so I'll need to look for references which cover them unless you already have refs on hand. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 16:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Amphetamine was first synthesized in 1887 in Germany by Romanian chemist Lazăr Edeleanu who named it phenylisopropylamine; [2] [3] [4] its stimulant effects remained unknown until 1927, when it was independently resynthesized by Gordon Alles and reported to have sympathomimetic properties. [4]
So, in early June 1929, Alles tested this chemical, which I will from now on call “amphetamine” for simplicity (though it would not receive this name officially for almost ten years), on himself. He noted a “feeling of well being,” “palpitation,” and eventually a “sleepless night” in which his “mind seemed to race from one subject to another.” Two days later the chemical was given to the first of several of Dr. Piness’s patients undergoing an asthma attack. It proved a mediocre asthma remedy, but these patients also experienced “exhilaration” and “palpitation”—that is, central nervous system and cardiac effects.Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).I’m reverting
this edit since these statements aren’t particularly noteworthy even in the context of ADHD individuals.
Amphetamine does indeed cause certain individuals to elicit aggressive, assaultive, suicidal, etc. behaviors more frequently than they would if they did not use the drug; however - and I can’t emphasize this enough - these are context-specific and reward-dependent drug effects. Even at near lethal doses, this drug does not make people angry; it does, however, amplify the value of salient rewards. In rather oversimplified terms, anger and reward together lead to assaultiveness, where reward simply functions as a “go” signal for that “goal” (i.e., physically assaulting a specific individual). In individuals with assaultive or suicidal tendencies, amphetamine can - but not necessarily will - cause them to act out on those tendencies more often. This is just a specific example of how amphetamine amplifies motivational salience for salient and goal-related rewards, thereby influencing the corresponding goal-oriented behavior.
In any event, if a stimulant actually did consistently increase the prevalence of hostile behaviors in the general population, it seems absurd that such an obvious and readily perceivable drug effect could be overlooked after 80 years of use (or even 1 clinical trial). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
We have this paragraph in the lead
"Amphetamine belongs to the phenethylamine class. It is also the parent compound of its own structural class, the substituted amphetamines,[note 4] which includes prominent substances such as bupropion, cathinone, MDMA, and methamphetamine. As a member of the phenethylamine class, amphetamine is also chemically related to the naturally occurring trace amine neuromodulators, specifically phenethylamine and N-methylphenethylamine, both of which are produced within the human body. Phenethylamine is the parent compound of amphetamine, while N-methylphenethylamine is a positional isomer of amphetamine that differs only in the placement of the methyl group."
And this is described as trivia?
"In 2016 it was the 292nd most prescribed medication in the United States with more than a million prescriptions?"
That it is one of the most commonly used medications in more interesting to the general public than that it is a "phenethylamine" which is stated 4 times. Gah. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently, pharmaceutical amphetamine is prescribed as racemic amphetamine, Adderall,[note 3] dextroamphetamine, or the inactive prodrug lisdexamfetamine.") would be very misleading. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, given how recently that group of medications became approved drug products, I don’t think there’s sufficient coverage (i.e., potential distinguishing article content) to justify creating an article on that right now. What would be the benefit in creating it though? FWIW, I think the independent notability of Adderall from amphetamine is marginal. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Depending on the type of content you have in mind, the best place to cover material on those drug products would probably be amphetamine#Pharmaceutical products or possibly amphetamine#Medical, but the former could definitely be expanded to cover specific indications and similar information for each drug product, like:
The real question is whether readers would find this useful or not. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a poorly understood term that adds little to the first sentence. It simple makes the first sentence long and thus more complicated.
The important bit is that it is a CNS stimulant and what it is used for. The fact that it is or is not potent can go in the body of the text. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Given the discussion on medmos (and common sense), addiction should not under any circumstances be a subsection of overdose. Overdose could be included under side effects or be separate. Not too fussed on that. Anyway, more eyes needed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
“Accidental” “definition” “overdose”, that definition is pervasive as it applies to both accidental overdose and intentional overdose. If one searches for
”drug abuse” “definition” “overdose”, one will find a toxicological definition reflecting acute adverse drug reactions. I simply didn’t care to cite any of the numerous other sources available to convince people of the fact that two definitions exist.
Re above, I was looking for refs that equated adverse effects and side effects last night; first three that I found from searching "adverse" "side" "effect" "definition"
were these:
A side effect is 'any unintended effect of a pharmaceutical product occurring at doses normally used by a patient which is related to the pharmacological properties of the drug'.
Essential elements in this definition are the pharmacological nature of the effect, that the phenomenon is unintended, and that there is no deliberate overdose.
— WHO Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal
A side effect is ‘any unintended effect of a pharmaceutical product occurring at doses normally used by a patient which is related to the pharmacological properties of the drug’.
Essential elements in this definition are the pharmacological nature of the effect, that the phenomenon is unintended, and that there is no deliberate overdose.
— WHO Safety of Medicines guide
Side effect is an imprecise term often used to refer to a drug’s unintended effects that occur within the therapeutic range.
— MERCK MANUAL Professional Version
I did not expect to find a definition that included the italicized statements, but that being the definition, "side effects" and "adverse effects" can't be used interchangeably when discussing abuse, recreational use, binge use, or overdose. I recognized a simple solution to that problem last night though and have implemented it. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 18:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Casliber: Copied from
Special:Permalink/898262918#Overdose. Facepalm
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 18:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Pathological overactivation of the mesolimbic pathway, a dopamine pathway that connects the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens, plays a central role in amphetamine addiction.[141][127] Individuals who frequently overdose on amphetamine during recreational use have a high risk of developing an amphetamine addiction, since repeated overdoses gradually increase the level of accumbal ΔFosB, a "molecular switch" and "master control protein" for addiction.[116][101][142] Once nucleus accumbens ΔFosB is sufficiently overexpressed, it begins to increase the severity of addictive behavior (i.e., compulsive drug-seeking) with further increases in its expression.[116][117] While there are currently no effective drugs for treating amphetamine addiction, regularly engaging in sustained aerobic exercise appears to reduce the risk of developing such an addiction.[129][130] Sustained aerobic exercise on a regular basis also appears to be an effective treatment for amphetamine addiction;[sources 10] exercise therapy improves clinical treatment outcomes and may be used as a combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy, which is currently the best clinical treatment available.[129][131][128] |
I fixed the selective transclusions of the addiction and dependence sections in Adderall, lisdexamfetamine, and dextroamphetamine earlier today. As this was the first time any of the section headings have been modified ever since those transclusions began using the WP:LST method, it didn't occur to me for over 24 hours that those articles omitted these sections entirely. I've updated the edit notice for this page to indicate the kind of edits (changing section headers) that cause problems with selective transclusions (once again: #New edit notice for this page) to address this issue in the future. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 10:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Adding a second just so you can format transclusions is not a sufficient justification.That wasn't my justification. My justification is immediately above.
There is more or less consensus at WT:MEDMOS and having another section labeled "Long term adverse effects" is not it."Long-term adverse effects" wasn't even an option in the RfC; the consensus was to put them in "adverse effects" per the comments following the !votes in the RfC. This issue only arose after I realized there was a definitional issue with using "side effects". Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I have looked over and over the FAC several times, and am only seeing two supports, with numerous concerns raised. What am I missing? I am unsure why this article was promoted FA, so perhaps there is a hidden comment I am not seeing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Amphetamine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sentence "Among European Union (EU) member states in 2018, 11.9 million adults of ages 15–64 have used amphetamine or methamphetamine at least one in their lives and 1.7 million have used either in the last year." (Section History, society, and culture) change "one" to "once".
In the sentence "The most common route of both legal and illicit amphetamine synthesis employs a non-metal reduction known as the Leuckart reaction (method 1)." (Section Chemistry/Synthesis) change "illicit" to "illegal". 217.89.108.210 ( talk) 07:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I was going to propose this text: A review of studies of amphetamines for ADHD in adults found that while amphetamines reduced severity of symptoms in the short term, due to higher risk of drop out due to adverse events, further studies are needed to assess the effects over the longer term.
But this is already covered more succinctly in the article. Is it relevant to add this finding that "[Castells et al 2018] found no differences in effectiveness between amphetamines and guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine." ?
|
Notgain ( talk) 12:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
This article could really use some significant simplification of language.
Had placed the effects in the lead before a discussion of which neurotransmitters it effects in an effort to make the beginning easier to understand and relevant to the general population. [1]
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Pppery: I realize that you mean well with your recent edits, but these have introduced a lot of paragraph whitespaces, additions of intentionally omitted/noincluded content (mainly hatnotes and some content in the OD section), and missing sections in the target articles (2 in the Adderall article). The LST method of transclusion isn't better or worse than the non-labeled method (as described in WP:SELTRANS) which this article uses. They're completely interchangeable methods of selective transclusion, so I don't really see the benefit of converting the source markup to the LST method. Frietjes also attempted to convert the current selective transclusion markup to LST a while back, but ended up introducing transclusion errors as well.
I'm going to go ahead and revert the markup back to the non-labeled transclusion version since this produces the same section transclusions as the LST method after correcting the current errors. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
<onlyinclude>
method introduces potentially confusing template and parser function syntax into the wikicode of an article, where as the LST <section begin=name />...<section end=name />
looks much clearer and in some cases (where the {{#section-h}}
parser function can be used) isn't even necessary. Secondly, if you forget to specify which section to include (or didn't know that selective transclusion was being used in the first place) (resulting in {{
Amphetamine}}, it is counterintuitive to have all of the selectively transcludable material shown without any kind of break. Using LST in this case would result in the entire article being shown, as one would expect when transcluding something.The following subsections are about a more complicated way to make selective transclusion without using the extension.
{{
if pagename}}
templates. I agree that it's probably easier for editors who are unfamiliar with templates to create selective transclusions with the LST method though.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 17:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
<section>
tags should be clear enough to anyone who has the word
Section (typography) in their vocabulary.@
Seppi333:On the topic of treating articles as templates, it's much clearer to me to see the code {{
FOSB addiction table}}
compared to {{:FOSB}}
. The former clearly is some sort of table related to
FOSB, where as the lattter example, transcluding an article, gives no indication of what is being transcluded. Your third sentence about template vandalism is also false -
recent changes patrollers will catch most vandalism - and to them it doesn't matter whether the vandalism goes to an article or to a template.
Pppery (
talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
addiction glossary}}
which has 3 watchlister reverts vs 2 page patrollers who never edited the page before
[2]. Oh wait. That was a counterexample. And it's a good one for demonstrating you're wrong about the significance of watchlisters too because the number of watchlisters is really small on that page. Anyway, this thread is so off-topic by now that it's not worth keeping an open discussion under the heading.{{
Psychostimulant addiction}}
, {{
Amphetamine pharmacodynamics}}
, {{
Amphetamine pharmacokinetics}}
, and {{
Catecholamine and trace amine biosynthesis}}
(Note to self: this syntax can't be added directly to this article because it will bork the selective transclusions; it has to be added to the templates).
{{
Annotated image 4}}
to add this functionality to all AI4-templated images (will need to simultaneously remove this table syntax from the above 4 templates, {{
Glycolysis summary}}
, the AI4 templates using
File:HMB synthesis.svg in
β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid#Synthesis and
β-methylbutyric acid#Uses, and
any other AI4-templated images that are currently nested within a wikitable when updating this functionality).{{
AI4}}
.Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Switch statement options for table alignment
|
---|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amphetamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Garzfoth: I noticed that you wanted to go through and WP:V the text cited by this ref, based upon your edit summary from special:diff/720255246/720433631. I hosted a lot of paywalled refs on my google site a while ago. The Goodman & Gilman's ref is hosted here. The highlighted sentences in that reference support the statements that are cited by that ref in this article.
In case you care to check any others, most of the other paywalled refs that are cited in this article are hosted on
this webpage. The file names on that page correspond to the reference name defined in quotes in the source code, as in: <ref name="file name">{{citation template goes here}}</ref>
.
The named reference for the Goodman & Gilman's textbook was defined as "Westfall" in the source code (i.e., <ref name="Westfall">
), so the ref is hosted on the google page under that file name.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 20:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Seppi333: The second sentence of the medical section says this:
Long-term amphetamine exposure in some animal species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage
Should this be qualified with "at some doses" or "sufficiently high doses"? And isn't "can" a more concise and direct, and less definite (doesn't imply 100% reliability), way of phrasing "is known to"? Exercisephys ( talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Amphetamine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm an addiction psychiatrist and a subject expert on ADHD and addiction. The phrasing of the cognitive enhancing effect of amphetamine in this article is WAY too strong. The articles cited are primarily for animal models, not human cognitive performance. There is actually a LACK of research results in human cognitive performance.
Sluox ( talk) 14:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Amphetamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amphetamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Temperature classification | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Note: The difference between fever and hyperthermia is the underlying mechanism. Different sources have different cut-offs for fever, hyperthermia and hyperpyrexia. | ||||||||||||
@ Doc James: Should I describe " core body temperature ≥ 40 °C" as hyperthermia, "severe hyperthermia", or hyperpyrexia? The ref that cites that text in the Amphetamine#Toxicity and psychosis section calls a core temperature over 40 °C "hyperthermia", but our articles on hyperthermia and fever (which hyperpyrexia redirects to) classifies core temperature ≥ 40 °C or ≥ 41.0 °C as "hyperpyrexia", via the transcluded template shown on the right.
Hyperthermia and hyperpyrexia are respectively listed as mild and severe OD symptoms in this article. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Body temperature is maintained within the range 36.5-37.5 °C. It is lowest in the early morning and highest in the afternoon.
Dantrolene may also be associated with improved survival and reduced complications, especially in patients with extreme (≥ 42 °C) or severe (≥ 40 °C) hyperpyrexia
Despite the myriad of complications associated with heat illness, an elevation of core temperature above 41.0 °C (often referred to as fever or hyperpyrexia) is the most widely recognized symptom of this syndrome.
I can appreciate a complex subject, but the lede has some readability issues for a general audience (and too for a FA). My quick two cents, if this hasn't already been discussed to death somewhere, is that "enantiomers" can be better explained in prose as a technical/jargon term. I could attempt a shot at this, but I'm thinking more like linking "mirror image stereoisomers" to "enantiomers" and either putting the term in parentheses or introducing it some other way. Similarly, do CNS and ADHD (the acronyms) need to be mentioned in the lede? The acronyms are mentioned below at first mention whereafter they are actually invoked as acronyms, but the acronyms don't appear as second time in the lede, so a bit superfluous. Thirdly, with the sourcing footnotes—I think this style has its uses and is certainly cleaner than throwing a load of footnotes into the paragraph, but it would be nice if there was some indication as to what facts are available in each source. A lot of work goes into verification so a little hand-holding here would go a long way. In historian footnotes, for example, the author may explain what sources are most pertinent in the footnote, as in "Read X or Y for general background. For more on its treatment applications, see Z, Q, A." And so on. Also, wouldn't it be worth prioritizing the cultural uses of the stimulant closer to the top of the lede? Perhaps this is my topic ignorance showing, but I imagine it's more important for readers to get a solid definition of how amphetamines are used in society and how they function well before hitting multiple terms of jargon or being linked to its chemical compound information. I see that a lot of love has gone into this article, so commendations all around—just some extra feedback in case anyone is listening and interested. czar 06:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Amphetamine properly refers to a specific chemical, the racemic free base, which is equal parts of the two enantiomers, levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine, in their pure amine forms. However, the term is frequently used informally to refer to any combination of the enantiomers, or to either of them alone.) is simply a summary of a sentence in the body of the article or - in the case of 1 sentence - a subarticle (the clause about being a euphoriant and aphrodisiac is covered in history and culture of substituted amphetamines). Consequently, the lead sentences could also be verified by simply looking at the sources that cite the analogous statements that are covered in the body.
@
Materialscientist:
This revision is the revision at the time this article was promoted to FA status. As is evident, a number of the quotes in the
article as of today were there when it was promoted - very little has changed since then (Edit: after looking through the source, a few of the longer quotes from the FA revision, particularly the ones related to ΔFosB, were censored a while back). The consensus to include every single one of those quotes is established by the promotion of that revision of this article to FA status. Hence, to remove all of the quotes that were already in the article at the time of the FA promotion, you need to get consensus to remove them. I'm actually fine with cutting down the size of the longer quotes that are in the article, but I'm rather adamantly opposed to simply deleting every quote simply because you don't like reference quotes.
Moreover, I asked you nicely on your talk page to simply censor quotes that you find too lengthy instead of delete them outright. You've simply ignored my request even though censoring and deleting the quotes produce the exact same output when the source is rendered as a web page. I don't see what the issue is here with honoring my request. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Seppi333: Seppi, what section(if any) do you think that this source could be placed along with the apparent relationship between the speed and magnitude of DA release and the intensity of reward and locomotor stimulation. Thanks Petergstrom ( talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
As indicated above, it is the combination of the rapid rate of increase and magnitude of effect that accounts for the powerful stimulant effects of amphetamine."
Petergstrom ( talk) 03:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)The kinetics of d-amphetamine when taken orally make it less rewarding (pleasurable) than cocaine or methamphetamine. Cocaine, whether snorted or smoked as ‘crack’ in particular, enters the brain very quickly, and appears even to be concentrated in the brain relative to plasma; this explains the high rewarding potential of this drug: faster brain entry leads to a greater ‘high’.
The lethal amphetamine dose is 20 to 25 mg/kg. For a regular person this could be about 1.6 grams. Tolerance can lead to up to 15g being survived. [1]
Benjamin ( talk) 05:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
References
I recently updated {{
AI4}}
to address a rendering issue on mobile browsers (i.e., when viewed on a mobile browser, the right side of the annotated images in this article would be cut off due to their large widths; this no longer happens). If anyone sees any abnormal layout issues while viewing this article on a mobile device or desktop browser, I'd appreciate feedback on that.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 12:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The "Amphetamines: Potent Recreational Drug of Abuse" article which was published in the Journal of Addiction Research and Therapy plagiarizes a massive amount text (i.e., over 20 paragraphs) from this Wikipedia article by republishing the text (much of which was superficially modified) without attribution, which is required by the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Since the text of this Wikipedia article is only available under that Creative Commons copyright license, the republication of article text from amphetamine without attribution in this journal article is copyright infringement. Wikipedia editors own the copyright for their contributions to Wikipedia (under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license), so if you've made contributions to this article prior to March 10, 2017 [note 1] in the " Side effects", " Overdose", or " History, society, and culture" sections, or in the 1st paragraph of the " Chemistry" section, the authors of this journal article are infringing upon your copyright.
Consequently, I recently notified the editorial staff of the journal that published this journal article and OMICS Publishing Group (NB: the journal is part of OMICS) about said copyright infringement. I also notified ResearchGate since the authors of the journal article uploaded the full text of their article to that website on this page. So far, I've only received a response from ResearchGate; they promptly removed the full text article from their website and left only the abstract in place, since the abstract doesn't contain any copyrighted text from Wikipedia or copyrighted images from Wikimedia Commons.
I'm hoping to get the journal article retracted or retracted and republished with corrections (i.e., with appropriate attribution for the copyrighted content from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons); however, I'm not sure at this point if the editorial staff of the journal or OMICS will take action. If they don't respond to my initial notice of copyright infringement or subsequent notices (i.e., a follow-up reminder about the issue 1 week from now, then a cease and desist letter after another week), I'm going to submit a DMCA takedown notice to the appropriate entities to get this link taken down by their online service provider. Also, I'm not sure if that academic journal publishes a paper version of their articles; if it does, legal action is probably the only recourse if they're not willing to resolve this issue of their own volition. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Was this just a fault of the publisher? Another approach would be to notify the academic departments of the universities of the paper's authors, particularly the lead author. This is academically deplorable and any reputable university will act, even several years past. That the material came from Wikipedia (sadly) will may also raise issues.
I have experienced this unattributed reuse with a non-scientific article and am quite disturbed by it. I am especially angered with unattributed use of graphics which Seppi333 created and/or substantially improved. These comprehensive images are memorable, and now one could mistakenly assume Wikipedia lifted them from that article. I see this as a crime against both honest scientists and honest Wikipedians. Forgive my rant. —
βox73
(৳alk) 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Above Seppi333 writes "I should point out that neither of the medical FAs I've written use prescriptive language that isn't attributed in the same sentence to the cited source":
Mostly your medical FAs have been about pharmaceutical compounds, which can be described objectively and factually. As soon as we start talking about people, humans, things get messy and less clear. What is abuse? What is optimal? What is safe? All just opinions. I'm not raising these points so you must go fix those articles, but just to show that it is actually hard. And we need to apply some common sense rather than dogma. -- Colin° Talk 07:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
As the title, I think it will enhance the readability of this article, making it even perfect. =) -- It's gonna be awesome!# Talk♬ 14:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't read through the whole prescribing information sheet for Mydaysis, but this "new" drug looks like it's a near perfect clone of Adderall XR with an almost trivial difference in pharmacomkinetics (i.e., the mean plasma concentrations of d-amphetamine over time from Mydayis relative to Adderall XR diverge slightly after 4 hours and converge at 10 hours).
Anyway, I was wondering which article others thought Mydayis should redirect to: Adderall or amphetamine? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Box73: I'm curious to know what you think. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it be called Dextroamphetamine/Amphetamine? That's a common generic name, and it fits both mixed salts and liquid formulations. 74.70.36.141 ( talk) 17:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Not really relevant anymore
|
---|
I figured I should mention here that I've just created an edit notice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/Amphetamine; this notice appears at the top of the page when editing this article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Amphetamine&action=edit). There have been several instances in the past few months where an edit completely borked the 3 pages where this article is transcluded, so I've covered this in the edit notice. Since I copied the edit notice template from Template:Editnotices/Page/Parkinson's disease, I also included the part from that template about discussing significant changes to the text/images on the talk page before making them in the article. If anyone has any suggestions for changes to the edit notice for this page, please let me know. I'm open to modifying it. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 02:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
|
I just updated the selective transclusion syntax in amphetamine, adderall, lisdexamfetamine, and dextroamphetamine to a newer method that circumvents the issue that I described in the collapse tab. I've cut the paragraph about selective transclusions in the edit notice since it's no longer possible for template syntax errors in this article to massively bork the articles that receive section transclusions from this one. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI: I'm going to remove the grouped end-of-paragraph references in the lead and replace them with the end-of-sentence citation format that was used in
beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid at some point in the next 2-3 weeks years. If you object to this, you should probably say so now. I'll be highly disinclined to revert the citation style back to a grouped references after working on this due to the amount of time it'll take me to re-cite the lead.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
There are two articles on wikipedia mentioning 1887 for two contradictory ideas about amphetamine: synthesis ( /info/en/?search=History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines)
and
discovery ( /info/en/?search=Amphetamine)
I suggest modifying the main page ( /info/en/?search=Amphetamine) with the sentence:
Amphetamine was first synthesized in 1887 in Germany by Romanian chemist Lazăr Edeleanu who named it phenylisopropylamine. ( /info/en/?search=History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.158.212 ( talk) 13:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
This is what the beginning of this page looks like on my Samsung Galaxy S7.
The {{ nowrap}}ping of the full name causes the lead to break when viewed vertically. When viewed horizontally, there is enough space between the left border and the infobox, and the lead appears normally.
If nowrap is removed, the sentence would wrap right after " alpha-", which solves the issue (at least on my phone). Is there any particular reason why nowrap is used here? Which other articles would be affected by this? Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 06:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Lead text:
Amphetamine, the first psychoactive prescription drug, is one member of a family of molecules derived from ephedrine. In 1885, the Japanese organic chemist, Nagai Nagayoshi isolated ephedrine from the Ephedra sinica plant and then developed a method for ephedrine synthesis. (Ephedra spp., known as má huáng (麻黄), had been used as a stimulant and anti-asthmatic since the Han dynasty.) In 1887, the Romanian chemist Lazar Edeleanu, beginning with ephedrine, discovered a method for synthesizing amphetamine. The pharmacological properties of amphetamine went unrecognized until 1929, when the American chemist, Gordon Alles, had himself injected with 50 mg of amphetamine, noting that it caused his heart rate and blood pressure to increase, and that it also had psychostimulant properties.[36]
@ Sbelknap: The text I've colored in red isn't really correct – I'm assuming you're confusing amphetamine with methamphetamine here since meth was first synthesized from ephedrine by Nagai Nagayoshi. I'm not sure what Edeleanu used as a reactant, but it couldn't have been ephedrine since the reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine yields methamphetamine ( [4]). Synthesizing amphetamine via the analogous method involves the reduction of norephedrine/norpseudoephedrine ( [5]). I can't read German, but in the event you can, this [1] is the paper Edeleanu published in 1887 on the synthesis of amphetamine. I'm sure it's mentioned in there somewhere.
As for the text in green, these statements are relevant to and suitable for the lead of History and culture of substituted amphetamines since the body of that article already mentions the isolation of ephedrine by Nagai (NB: per MOS:INTRO, every statement in the lead should be a summary of content from the body of an article; so, if a statement in the lead isn't repeated in the body of an article, it needs to be added to the body or removed from the lead). Consequently, I've added these sentences to that article's lead.
As for the underlined clauses, including this material in the amphetamine article is fine with me; however, these assertions need to be added with a supporting reference since featured articles are required to be fully compliant with the WP:Verifiability policy. Unfortunately, I don't remember if either assertion was mentioned in any of the references that currently cite this article, so I'll need to look for references which cover them unless you already have refs on hand. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 16:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Amphetamine was first synthesized in 1887 in Germany by Romanian chemist Lazăr Edeleanu who named it phenylisopropylamine; [2] [3] [4] its stimulant effects remained unknown until 1927, when it was independently resynthesized by Gordon Alles and reported to have sympathomimetic properties. [4]
So, in early June 1929, Alles tested this chemical, which I will from now on call “amphetamine” for simplicity (though it would not receive this name officially for almost ten years), on himself. He noted a “feeling of well being,” “palpitation,” and eventually a “sleepless night” in which his “mind seemed to race from one subject to another.” Two days later the chemical was given to the first of several of Dr. Piness’s patients undergoing an asthma attack. It proved a mediocre asthma remedy, but these patients also experienced “exhilaration” and “palpitation”—that is, central nervous system and cardiac effects.Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).I’m reverting
this edit since these statements aren’t particularly noteworthy even in the context of ADHD individuals.
Amphetamine does indeed cause certain individuals to elicit aggressive, assaultive, suicidal, etc. behaviors more frequently than they would if they did not use the drug; however - and I can’t emphasize this enough - these are context-specific and reward-dependent drug effects. Even at near lethal doses, this drug does not make people angry; it does, however, amplify the value of salient rewards. In rather oversimplified terms, anger and reward together lead to assaultiveness, where reward simply functions as a “go” signal for that “goal” (i.e., physically assaulting a specific individual). In individuals with assaultive or suicidal tendencies, amphetamine can - but not necessarily will - cause them to act out on those tendencies more often. This is just a specific example of how amphetamine amplifies motivational salience for salient and goal-related rewards, thereby influencing the corresponding goal-oriented behavior.
In any event, if a stimulant actually did consistently increase the prevalence of hostile behaviors in the general population, it seems absurd that such an obvious and readily perceivable drug effect could be overlooked after 80 years of use (or even 1 clinical trial). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
We have this paragraph in the lead
"Amphetamine belongs to the phenethylamine class. It is also the parent compound of its own structural class, the substituted amphetamines,[note 4] which includes prominent substances such as bupropion, cathinone, MDMA, and methamphetamine. As a member of the phenethylamine class, amphetamine is also chemically related to the naturally occurring trace amine neuromodulators, specifically phenethylamine and N-methylphenethylamine, both of which are produced within the human body. Phenethylamine is the parent compound of amphetamine, while N-methylphenethylamine is a positional isomer of amphetamine that differs only in the placement of the methyl group."
And this is described as trivia?
"In 2016 it was the 292nd most prescribed medication in the United States with more than a million prescriptions?"
That it is one of the most commonly used medications in more interesting to the general public than that it is a "phenethylamine" which is stated 4 times. Gah. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently, pharmaceutical amphetamine is prescribed as racemic amphetamine, Adderall,[note 3] dextroamphetamine, or the inactive prodrug lisdexamfetamine.") would be very misleading. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, given how recently that group of medications became approved drug products, I don’t think there’s sufficient coverage (i.e., potential distinguishing article content) to justify creating an article on that right now. What would be the benefit in creating it though? FWIW, I think the independent notability of Adderall from amphetamine is marginal. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Depending on the type of content you have in mind, the best place to cover material on those drug products would probably be amphetamine#Pharmaceutical products or possibly amphetamine#Medical, but the former could definitely be expanded to cover specific indications and similar information for each drug product, like:
The real question is whether readers would find this useful or not. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a poorly understood term that adds little to the first sentence. It simple makes the first sentence long and thus more complicated.
The important bit is that it is a CNS stimulant and what it is used for. The fact that it is or is not potent can go in the body of the text. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Given the discussion on medmos (and common sense), addiction should not under any circumstances be a subsection of overdose. Overdose could be included under side effects or be separate. Not too fussed on that. Anyway, more eyes needed Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
“Accidental” “definition” “overdose”, that definition is pervasive as it applies to both accidental overdose and intentional overdose. If one searches for
”drug abuse” “definition” “overdose”, one will find a toxicological definition reflecting acute adverse drug reactions. I simply didn’t care to cite any of the numerous other sources available to convince people of the fact that two definitions exist.
Re above, I was looking for refs that equated adverse effects and side effects last night; first three that I found from searching "adverse" "side" "effect" "definition"
were these:
A side effect is 'any unintended effect of a pharmaceutical product occurring at doses normally used by a patient which is related to the pharmacological properties of the drug'.
Essential elements in this definition are the pharmacological nature of the effect, that the phenomenon is unintended, and that there is no deliberate overdose.
— WHO Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal
A side effect is ‘any unintended effect of a pharmaceutical product occurring at doses normally used by a patient which is related to the pharmacological properties of the drug’.
Essential elements in this definition are the pharmacological nature of the effect, that the phenomenon is unintended, and that there is no deliberate overdose.
— WHO Safety of Medicines guide
Side effect is an imprecise term often used to refer to a drug’s unintended effects that occur within the therapeutic range.
— MERCK MANUAL Professional Version
I did not expect to find a definition that included the italicized statements, but that being the definition, "side effects" and "adverse effects" can't be used interchangeably when discussing abuse, recreational use, binge use, or overdose. I recognized a simple solution to that problem last night though and have implemented it. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 18:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Casliber: Copied from
Special:Permalink/898262918#Overdose. Facepalm
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 18:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
Pathological overactivation of the mesolimbic pathway, a dopamine pathway that connects the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens, plays a central role in amphetamine addiction.[141][127] Individuals who frequently overdose on amphetamine during recreational use have a high risk of developing an amphetamine addiction, since repeated overdoses gradually increase the level of accumbal ΔFosB, a "molecular switch" and "master control protein" for addiction.[116][101][142] Once nucleus accumbens ΔFosB is sufficiently overexpressed, it begins to increase the severity of addictive behavior (i.e., compulsive drug-seeking) with further increases in its expression.[116][117] While there are currently no effective drugs for treating amphetamine addiction, regularly engaging in sustained aerobic exercise appears to reduce the risk of developing such an addiction.[129][130] Sustained aerobic exercise on a regular basis also appears to be an effective treatment for amphetamine addiction;[sources 10] exercise therapy improves clinical treatment outcomes and may be used as a combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy, which is currently the best clinical treatment available.[129][131][128] |
I fixed the selective transclusions of the addiction and dependence sections in Adderall, lisdexamfetamine, and dextroamphetamine earlier today. As this was the first time any of the section headings have been modified ever since those transclusions began using the WP:LST method, it didn't occur to me for over 24 hours that those articles omitted these sections entirely. I've updated the edit notice for this page to indicate the kind of edits (changing section headers) that cause problems with selective transclusions (once again: #New edit notice for this page) to address this issue in the future. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 10:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Adding a second just so you can format transclusions is not a sufficient justification.That wasn't my justification. My justification is immediately above.
There is more or less consensus at WT:MEDMOS and having another section labeled "Long term adverse effects" is not it."Long-term adverse effects" wasn't even an option in the RfC; the consensus was to put them in "adverse effects" per the comments following the !votes in the RfC. This issue only arose after I realized there was a definitional issue with using "side effects". Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I have looked over and over the FAC several times, and am only seeing two supports, with numerous concerns raised. What am I missing? I am unsure why this article was promoted FA, so perhaps there is a hidden comment I am not seeing. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Amphetamine has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the sentence "Among European Union (EU) member states in 2018, 11.9 million adults of ages 15–64 have used amphetamine or methamphetamine at least one in their lives and 1.7 million have used either in the last year." (Section History, society, and culture) change "one" to "once".
In the sentence "The most common route of both legal and illicit amphetamine synthesis employs a non-metal reduction known as the Leuckart reaction (method 1)." (Section Chemistry/Synthesis) change "illicit" to "illegal". 217.89.108.210 ( talk) 07:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I was going to propose this text: A review of studies of amphetamines for ADHD in adults found that while amphetamines reduced severity of symptoms in the short term, due to higher risk of drop out due to adverse events, further studies are needed to assess the effects over the longer term.
But this is already covered more succinctly in the article. Is it relevant to add this finding that "[Castells et al 2018] found no differences in effectiveness between amphetamines and guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine." ?
|
Notgain ( talk) 12:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)