![]() | 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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I've been developing a system for having works peer reviewed in Wikiversity (see Wikiversity:Peer review). With the success of already peer reviewed works, I am now confident that I'll be able to arrange for a peer review of most works consisting of original medical research. Therefore, until further notice I'll arrange for peer review of medical research works for free if the following conditions are met:
Let me know if you're interested in having a work peer reviewed. You may also want to sign up as a potential peer reviewer at Wikiversity School of Medicine. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 10:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
According to Alexbrn spinal manipulation has no direct connection to chiropractic but it was previously that there is a connection because chiropractors' main modality is spinal manipulation. After User:Middle 8 explained this on the talk page I thought the discussion would be over and editors would move on but the discussion is continuing.
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) This 2013
systematic review was deleted.This is being discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Spinal manipulation and chiropractic. The current discussion on the talk page is at Talk:Chiropractic#A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS compliant sources are being deleted per fringe but fringe is not applicable. This was previously explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Is WHO guideline a MEDRS.
Background information: Alexbrn, do you want to delete all reliable sources from chiropractic solely based on being written in chiropractic journals? [1] [2] [3] [4] Chiropractic peer-reviewed journals are also reliable. See WP:MEDASSESS.
According to the 2010 source: "METHODS: The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs." [5]
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)There was a previous discussion about this source. User:Puhlaa originally added the source to the article back in 2011 and the discussion resulted in keeping the source in the body of the article.
The current discussion on the talk page is at Talk:Chiropractic#Fringe journal or MEDRS compliant?. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I explained the sources meet WP:MEDASSESS and fringe does not apply but Alexbrn claims chiropractic is a fringe topic. Chiropractic is not fringe. An analysis of the use of complementary health practices for back pain, based on data from the 2002 NHIS, found that chiropractic was by far the most commonly used therapy. Among survey respondents who had used any of these therapies for their back pain, 74 percent (approximately 4 million Americans) had used chiropractic. Among those who had used chiropractic for back pain, 66 percent perceived “great benefit” from their treatments.. It was previously explained that Two-thirds of primary care physicians in the US recommend it. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I am being reverted on this article by Alexbrn (and only by him) after making some additions from reliable secondary sources and adding a few sentences that were more accurate to the sources provided by Alexbrn. My purpose in bringing this here is not to complain about Alexbrn, but to get some more eyes on this and to begin a discussion on the talk page to hash this issue out. Alexbrn has a history of reverting my edits with inadequate explanations or ones I find to be lacking in merit (we clearly do not see eye to eye even a little), so I would really like to get more outside opinions from other veteran editors. I am also being accused of edit warring after a single reversion (he reverted my edits a second time) and I'm not going to violate 3RR. Here are the diffs in question: [6] and [7] (poor source considering I used secondary sources such as recent peer-reviewed journal articles), and [8]. I believed the edits I made were neutral, used simpler language for a broader audience in the lead, were far more accurate to the sources if you read the 1998 Guglielmo paper (what was originally cited, now added on Bledsoe and Salzberg) and was reverted. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 06:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what the article talk page is for. There were problems with your edit, some serious.
Also, as a general issue:
I'm not suggesting we put distinct content in the lead of the article, it should be in the body of the article as well for consistency, on that point we agree. I see you having discussions on this page all the time, it did not occur to me that I needed to inform you that I am consulting other editors about a content dispute so we can include more in the discussion. I'm also not making a "personalized complaint about you", as you say, that's one way to look at it I suppose. What I am doing is discussing with other editors who have not been actively editing the article that you and I are having a content dispute and why I disagree with your reversions and am therefore asking for outside opinions. Your accusations are not appreciated. I have not filed any formal complaint about you or sought action against you at all. Speaking of courtesy, you have been quite condescending in tone and have attempted to order me around, both of which are also not appreciated. However, I would appreciate it if in the future you would attempt to have a civil discussion with me rather than use a curt tone. I already know you have the page watchlisted, that is obvious from earlier edits.
You've also yet to explain the reversion of the other edits I made to the first paragraph of the lead which was simplifying the language and removing what is clearly an attempt at a negative connotation with specific wording. The quote you used "To many in the allopathic community, the principles articulated by Still and embraced by his followers seemed like so much pseudoscientific dogma". is out of context-it is clearly referring to the past and is written in the past tense. Notice that it specifically says "that suspicion continued for many decades" indicating that the previous sentence was talking about at least several decades ago. It is not about modern perceptions. Here is the quote for all to see in context with the preceding and following paragraphs intact: "For much of its nearly 125-year history, the osteopathic profession has had an uneasy, sometimes bitter relationship with the M.D. community. It was not until the mid-1960s that D.O.s were permitted to join the American Medical Association. Today, about 8,000 D.O.s (or 20 percent of their total) belong to the AMA.
For many years, M.D.s looked upon D.O.s as cultists, determined to practice according to the osteopathic principles laid out in 1874 by founder Andrew Taylor Still. An allopathic physician himself, Still rejected the prevailing medicine of his day, in particular its reliance on drugs and surgery. In its place, he developed an osteopathic approach to care-one that traced physiological disturbances in the body to abnormalities in the musculoskeletal system. By employing hands-on therapy to correct these structural abnormalities, he believed, physicians could enhance the body's natural tendency toward health and self-healing.
To many in the allopathic community, the principles articulated by Still and embraced by his followers seemed like so much pseudoscientific dogma. That suspicion continued for many decades.
Shut out by the M.D. community, D.O.s started their own schools, hospitals, and practices, first in the Midwest and then in other regions of the country. In 1897, they also founded their own version of the AMAthe American Association for the Advancement of Osteopathy, renamed the American Osteopathic Association in 1901. Before long, D.O.s and M.D.s inhabited two parallel and, in many ways, distinct spheres of American medicine."
As for the pseudoscience bit, there is only one instance of the word pseudoscience in the entire article and it is the part about Stephen Barrett here: ""The pseudoscience within osteopathy can't compete with the science," says retired allopathic psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, author of 44 books, including "The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America," "Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions," and "Reader's Guide to `Alternative' Health Methods."
Barrett, who maintains a Web site (www.quackwatch. com), recently exchanged strongly worded letters with the AOA over an article he posted on the Net entitled "Dubious Osteopathic Practices." Most D.O.s, he writes, practice a brand of medicine that's identical to M.D. medicine, "except for [a] slight additional emphasis on musculoskeletal diagnosis and treatment." But a minority of D.O.s, he argues, persist in the use of much more "dubious treatments" like cranial therapy, which he describes as a manipulation of the bones of the skull to relieve pain and cure other ailments." Please show me where else in the referenced paper there are other critics aside from Stephen Barrett criticizing OMT as pseudoscientific. As mentioned earlier, I already attempted to compromise and modify the statement from referenced sources to say Stephen Barrett and Bryan Bledsoe. I already discussed the bit about Dr. Jordan Cohen of the AAMC if that's what you're referring to. You already added his quote and it states specifically that skepticism enters in the M.D. community when claims are made that OMT can be used for non-musculoskeletal complaints. No mention of pseudoscience in his quote whatsoever and it is not ours to interpret. I can provide that quote here too if needed. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 04:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:RS "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."
None of the references contain a statement that most scientists or scholars hold a certain view about OMT. As it says in the above quote, per Wikipedia policy, it should be the selected individual opinions and should not be phrased as the general consensus. Also, the edits regarding the language of the article's lead need to be addressed. My attempts to employ simplified language without changing the meaning and in another instance changing the language to remove an implicit negative connotation and make the language more neutral were reverted. These issues need to be addressed. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 21:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Wondering if there is support for a bot to convert cite PMID and cite DOI to cite journal? I am currently doing this manually for all articles being put up for translation as the first two are not supported in other languages. If there is support here I will than apply for permission at the bot page and possibly offer a prize for its creation. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
New article. Not even sure where to start. Sigh. WP:POVFORK comes to mind. Yobol ( talk) 23:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Is this a notable physician, and are the references acceptable? It would need editing to remove unverifiable detail. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The above article has been nominated for deletion here: [12]. Lesion ( talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear all,
It may be of interest that Cancer Research UK, an organisation based in London, UK, is looking for a Wikipedian in Residence to deliver a six month full time project. The application closes tomorrow, 12th February. I hope those of you interested in helping in this project will be able to apply. Details are here: https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candidate/so/pm/1/pl/4/opp/482-Wikipedian-in-Residence/en-GB
Many thanks, Daria Cybulska (WMUK) ( talk) 10:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I just came across this about a new Wellcome site, which looks very useful. http://wellcomeimages.org/ LeadSongDog come howl! 23:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
With some exceptions (e.g. delirium and now cancer), professional and advocacy groups have not in any way engaged with this WikiProject to improve the quality of articles relevant to their interest. That is strange, because as Laurent & Vickers ( PMID 19390105) showed, anyone searching the major search engines will probably find Wikipedia articles before they find the material published by these organisations.
But imagine if the American Thyroid Association decided that they wanted to get involved in improving the articles on thyroid disease (COI: recently been working on hypothyroidism), what should our response be? Particularly if they offer expert input in indentifying useful information and high-quality sources?
Perhaps something else: should we be making an effort to approach these organisations and suggest that they take a more active role in supporting the development of high-quality Wikipedia content in the area of their interest? I can already foresee the problems, e.g. how to stop encyclopedia articles from turning into patient information leaflets ( WP:YOU everywhere), and how to sensitively discuss common controversies. I'm interested to hear what the Project has to say about this. JFW | T@lk 09:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing bad wording on my part. I meant more of a social contract/understanding rather than something formal. We help them find a better way to reach their populations (e.g. point out the relevant pages) in return for them training someone that will follow the rules of the road on Wikipedia. I can create interactive learning modules (e.g. mix video, slides, questions they can answer) in HTML5 pretty easily, but there would need to be somewhere to host it. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK has an Expert outreach programme which involves developing relationships with scholarly societies, to deliver events, create publications and so on. It started off with Cancer Research UK, as you note, but the Royal Society of Chemistry, Society of Biology, Medical Research Council, British Psychological Society, Royal Society, Parkinson's UK and in total about a couple of dozen scholarly societies or research units have been involved. The relationship with the Medical Research Council goes back to July 2011. Influenced by the contacts I've made through this programme, I've been working on brochures including one on how Wikimedia can help researchers with impact and public engagement. One of the outcomes is my current work with Jisc, through which I can influence universities and other holders of scholarly and cultural content. I think it helps to have a national angle on these things because the funding/research environments will influence how receptive the societies are to working with us. Wikimedia UK is currently calling for organisations to host Wikipedians in Residence, so if you have societies in mind, nudge them or meet them to persuade them of the value of taking this up. MartinPoulter Jisc ( talk) 12:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Ian Furst: Wikimedia UK has a Moodle-based Virtual Learning Environment. Would it be a suitable host for your interactive materials? MartinPoulter Jisc ( talk) 12:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion got me thinking further about the difficulties in recruiting good new editors through outreach initiatives. For example, the interesting medical one in Coventry a while back, where a varied selection of medical professionals came along, having been granted a day off work (perfectly reasonably I think) for educational purposes. Last time I checked virtually none of the participants had done any significant editing. Scarcely a surprise perhaps, given habitual workloads...
So does this apparent lack of effectiveness, in terms of recruitment, indicate an outreach failure? Not necessarily, imo. Many of the people there seemed to find the day interesting (and it also served useful secondary purposes within the MED project).
Taken together, it's encouraged me to think of outreach in a slightly different light, as an educational rather than a recruitment opportunity. I suspect most good long-term contributors gravitate to Wikipedia of their own accord, through a combination of an interest in providing free and reliable information and other personal factors. Outreach is a good opportunity to explain to people how Wikipedia works. But I'm less sure that it can realistically be seen as a major recruitment opportunity (at least in the short term). 2c,
109.158.185.136 (
talk) 19:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please excuse the previous post if it seems overly critical of your reflections. It was not my intent. I agree that sharing the culture of Wikipedia through face-to-face outreach with professionals has the potential to increase engagement. However, it’s a time-intensive (albeit highly personal) means of improving end-user engagement. My belief is there’s a finite supply of time available from the Wikipedians who have the energy and talent for outreach programs. If they’re willing to volunteer the time (regardless of the potential outcome), what is the more fruitful way to spend it? I believe it’s a trade-off in the richness and reach of relationships. It’s possible we could achieve a similar cultural understanding for the end-user through a less rich, less time-intensive social media program. I don’t think it is as easy to achieve the level of relationship necessary to engage a new editor without some sort of personal interaction. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The above article has also been nominated for deletion here: [13]. Lesion ( talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In schizophrenia research, the basic symptoms concept has become used in Continental Europe, at least, but there seems to have been less interest in the English speaking world. Also, of self-disorders, a related concept, there has been recent mention in The Oxford Handbook of the Self (2011), edited by Shaun Gallagher and published by the Oxford University Press, in an essay titled "Self-Consciousness in Schizophrenia" (pp. 521-546), written by Louis A. Sass and Josef Parnas. This source references foundational texts and authors (such as Henry Bergson) who have become notable in Europe, but less so in the English-speaking world; it also references studies done on the self-disorders, showing that they "aggregate" in schizophrenia spectrum disorders, with significantly lower rates in non-spectrum disorders (pp. 524-525). As well, a research of the literature on basic symptoms of schizophrenia (on, e.g., PubMed) shows many articles; articles on self-disorders also appear.
However, there seems to be little mention of them on the articles on the English Wikipedia, at least, dealing with schizophrenia. There was a small, single paragraph mention of them on the Causes of Schizophrenia page, but little else.
I have to ask, does this concept carry little weight, or is the English Wikipedia not giving enough due weight to basic symptoms and self-disorders because of a lack of a global perspective on the issue? Are basic symptoms and self-disorders notable enough to receive their own Wikipedia article? -- Beneficii ( talk) 19:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Found Hydranencephaly, which could really do with an image. I took a look with a google free image & google site:*.gov , but didn't find any free. Is there any way to tag an articles talk page? CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Image requested|medical subjects|of=}}
for the talk page, at the top.
Lesion (
talk) 11:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)The WHO guideline:
has been used in the Chiropractic article at least since February 2008, judging by the accessdate. It was extensively re-assessed as a source during 2010-11 as evidenced by the talk page archives Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 31 onwards to my knowledge. Its use in 7 places in the article has not been challenged, but its use in the lead has by JzG ( talk · contribs) (see above discussions). I would therefore like to request other opinions on its suitability as a MEDRS-compliant source to make statements about the safety of chiropractic. Some of the arguments brought forward so far are:
Now I've been through this treadmill before and I know when I'm starting to get annoyed by another editor. Rather than have us bickering, I'd be grateful if someone would do me (and Guy) the kindness of telling one or the other (or both) that we're right or wrong about whether WHO guidelines from 2005 are an acceptable MEDRS source for the safety of chiropractic, please. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is another source that was deleted. I think the source is reliable and the text passes verifiable. See ( PMID 23171540). See Talk:Chiropractic#Reliability of Chiropr and Osteopat. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Our study suggests that chiropractors tend to establish their practices in areas that also have higher supply of primary care physicians. This is likely explained by the influence of market conditions on both groups: both are likely to locate in areas that will support their practices – however, there are many other personal and professional factors that our data did not account for. This finding may suggests [sic] that chiropractors function in a complementary role, as opposed to an alternative role, to primary care physicians.
So if, for example, a professor at a major university publishes an article claiming that abortion causes breast cancer in a non-indexed journal, is he is still an expert? I'm not positive, but I think that being an expert doesn't give you a pass on submitting your work through the peer-review process. Jinkinson talk to me 01:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
My argument above was based on quoting the WP:FRINGE guidance directly: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles". You countered that WP:FRINGE does not apply here. Can you explain why it does not apply? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing a number of edit summaries like "You can't delete reliable sources" but that's simply not true, there are other policies like
WP:DUEWEIGHT (part of
WP:NPOV) and
WP:FRINGE which is a related guideline that indicate that not every thing that can be reliably sourced will always be guaranteed a place in an article. The arguments that simply repeat "It's reliably sourced" simply have no weight unless they address this.
Zad
68
19:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This by Guy was a SYN violation. "Although" is SYN. These are different sources that are not connected. The part "published by practitioners" is not what the source says and this is a violation of WP:ASSERT. I think I am being unfairly targeted at ANI. Adding original research is not editorial discretion. Deleting reliable sources such as WHO is not appropriate according to a number of other editors.
For supporting keeping reliable sources such the WHO source in the chiropractic article and improving the article I think I am unfairly being targeted. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I made this – {{ Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Quackstar}} – for two editors in particular who I think have consistently and laboriously gone way out of their way to fix countless perceived errors in medical articles over the past few months. I also made it because it saddened me that there was nothing like this on WP:MED before now.
The new barnstar: a sense of humor is required when pushing this button ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒
| ||
---|---|---|
|
I didn't feel like making it conform to 2.0 standards (at least, not yet), sorry.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained) 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Per the ICD 10 these two terms are the same. I merged the two topics a while ago. Which should we use as the name of the article? Discussion here [17] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Article feedback is going away entirely. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 123#Article Feedback: Next Steps if you've been using it on any articles. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am using it for the translation project. We are looking for feedback from readers on whether or not they find they translations useful. Unfortunate to see it go. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rotator cuff arthropathy. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion at the Help Desk ( saved revision), three articles on what seems to be some fringe theory in mental health (with some sort of deconstructivist flair) have been nominated for deletion:
This seems like it might be within the scope of this project or some taskforce therein. Thanks. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a major restructuring and rewrite of the article, and wish to get it to at least B-class, but hopefully even higher. That way we can apply for DYK. If anyone is interested in helping out there is a draft version over here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve. Would do especially well with some help about clinical significance. CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Requesting further input here Talk:Obesity#BMI_ranges. Also the WHO uses "weight" however a user feels that they are wrong and it should be "mass". What are peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the term for the air that remains in the upper respiratory tract, trachea, primary bronchi etc during an inhalation and never reaches the alveoli before the exhalation? Lesion ( talk) 22:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
While you're all thinking about all things lung-related, can anyone answer a pure-curiosity question for me? I read a bit about the history of CPAP machines. Apparently, the treatment for severe obstructive sleep apnea was an emergency tracheotomy—really like an emergency: you show up at the emergency room not having really slept for months, and they did a tracheotomy as soon as they could get a surgeon and an anesthesiologist into the same room. Why couldn't you just intubate the patient, get a good night's sleep, and schedule the surgery on a semi-elective basis? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone heard of this phenomenon. I can just say that the article would never pass AfC today, and it could use some looking at, whether anything usable be merged to spina bifida? Sources are rather poor. CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have any expertise in this area. We've had a user add primary research about harvesting stem cells from wisdom teeth. I have no idea if it's critically important, cutting edge research (and leaving a primary source is OK) or just an extension of research that's already been done on non-tooth sources (in which case I'd wait until secondary sources can be provided). Ian Furst ( talk) 13:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
An IP editor has suggested making these stand alone articles. Tried to find a WHO definition for these terms and failed. Maybe someone else will have better luck to help resolve this. Lesion ( talk) 12:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed many uncited assertions from this article. There is a merge proposal at the gum arabic talk page [21]. (I am not sure if this is the proper venue--if this is posted in the wrong place, feel free to move it elsewhere. Thank you.) Kablammo ( talk) 13:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
We should think of some way to make writing medical content on wikipedia count towards CME... Thoughts? Lesion ( talk) 21:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Revolutionary.... I like that. Ian Furst ( talk) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
On Anesthesia there are about 5 different professional societies linked from the external links subsection. Is there a policy about the use of the external link section? Should I leave or remove them? Thx. Ian Furst ( talk) 01:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Most already have pages linked to their specialty (e.g. Anesthesiologist, Nurse anesthetist, etc...) Within those articles there are the links. I think it gets too off topic for the general page on Anesthesia. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter: Talk:Condom#STD/STI protection. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Article needs some neurology love. Related article on a major foodstuff has a casava#Food use processing and toxicity section which needs some neuro/pharma attention too. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a recent story on NPR about a class at UCSF where the professor, Amin Azzam, instructs his students to improve medicine-related Wikipedia articles. Thought I'd put it here for the consideration of all WikiProject Medicine members. Jinkinson talk to me 19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the largest organ that Cells Alive System freezers have been shown to help preserve beyond traditional cryopreservation? 114.94.27.250 ( talk) 23:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Please also share your general opinion of them at Template talk:Emerging technologies#Justification for inclusion of CAS freezers? (Furthermore, doesn't that template need some emerging vaccine and engineered genetic therapies?) 114.94.27.250 ( talk) 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)</ref> and{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)By the way this study has a poor control group. [22]Why compare -3 degree in magic fridge with 4 degrees in normal frige? Why not compare -3 in magic fridge with magnet on and -3 in magic fridge with magnet off. One could even blind it where the researchers DO NOT KNOW which magic fridge has the magnet on or off? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Needs attention re WP:MEDRS compliance. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The article says "Dermabrasion should not be confused with microdermabrasion which is a newer and non-surgical cosmetic procedure performed by non-physician personnel, nurses, estheticians, medical assistants, and most recently untrained individuals in their homes" -- and then the whole rest of the article appears to be about microdermabrasion. I suggest splitting the article into two. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I came across this article via its mention at Body fat percentage, both of which seem written like an advert. I'm afraid I don't have time to go through it at the moment, and just wanted to give a head's up. Thanks, a13ean ( talk) 19:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Could someone with medical knowledge have a look at the new article In Vivo Bioreactor? It has some clearly promotional content to it but there may be useful, salvageable content as well. Thank you. Peacock ( talk) 12:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I was watching a viral video featuring a kid who suffers from Schwartz-Jampel syndrome. I was astonished at the red link. Maybe this happens a lot in this field, but still, that surprised me. Just sayin'. :) -- Elitre ( talk) 18:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about this, if anything. There's a fairly large number of microbiology articles containing passages with books from Caister press cited as references. Many of these passages have been copy/pasted directly from the books. I believe that all of these passages were entered into the articles by a single editor who has acknowledged a conflict of interest. That editor has left Wikipedia. Over the past year I've been checking every passage cited by a Caister press book that I encounter and deleting the passage if it was copied from the cited book. I'm currently cleaning up Food microbiology. I ended up deleting a majority of the article, and I still haven't completed checking all of the sections. Sometimes the passage comes not from the cited book but from another book from the same publisher, making detection of the copy/paste more difficult (although I'm sure there's an easier way to detect this). In many articles, a citation of a book from Caister press has been added to the end of the first sentence or paragraph in the lead, even if there was already another citation. In other cases, a new article was created closely related to an existing article, with the references in the new article citing only books from Caister press (although other editors may have made additions later with other citations). For example, we have Systems biology and Systems microbiology; Food microbiology and Food Microbiology (although these were later merged); Microbial ecology and Environmental microbiology (also merged later). It's possible that I managed to clear out most of the copy/paste issues, but I continue to find more Caister copy/paste issues when browsing Wikipedia. What could be done, if anything? CatPath ( talk) 08:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
"Caister Academic Press" site:en.wikipedia.org
gives 602 hits (not all of them problematical), so we have an idea of the potential size of the problem. --
RexxS (
talk) 19:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this a true redlink or am I not looking in the right places? Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 21:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, medical experts. Another old Afc submission which has been tagged as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone who is experienced at GA review wants to work with me on this one, please let me know. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 01:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is the article Paralysis so terribly bad (and short)? Abductive ( reasoning) 07:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Disorders causing seizures, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
In a recent edit, information has been added to the article lede claiming that tea tree oil can have some medical benefit including treating herpes and lice. These claims are sourced to PMID 22998411 which, on the face of it, looks a potentially reasonable source. However the claims seem rather exceptional and/or in contradiction to sources that were being used in the article. The article itself goes further, saying tea tree oil is an "anti-skin cancer agent". Could somebody have a look at this source/content and offer an assessment - how reliable is this? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The developer of this intervention has been engaging constructively in talk page discussion ( Talk:The Lightning Process#help on accuracy) and has he been informed about our stringent sourcing guidelines for clinical claims. When commenting [29] I said I would refer the topic to WT:MED to try to elicit further feedback (and I see the page was already discussed here before, in 2011). Regards, 81.147.166.111 ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I could use the eyes of a more experienced editor. I went to the above page and removed some unreferenced claims and tried to make it more WP:NPOV only to have it reverted by user Shastri (doesn't have a user page) within hours. Same name as the person who conceived the "revolutionary Regenerative Medicine paradigm" and the senior author on all the papers referenced. Not sure where to take it from here. Thx. Ian Furst ( talk) 19:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether or not it's worth nominating this for a WP:featured picture - File:TAAR1 Dopamine.svg. I have no experience with the process, so I'm just wondering if anyone familiar with featured pictures (diagrams) thinks its up to par. Besides the fact that it took forever to make, it's more or less the culmination of everything I've learned while researching amphetamine, TAAR1, and trace amines for the past several months. Sort of surprising that there's an endogenous compound with identical pharmacodynamics (same targets, roughly the same affinities) to amphetamine, no? ;)
Transcluded image insertion template
| |
---|---|
Note: there's an annotated wikilink in this image that isn't part of the original (the "via AADC").
|
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a question of if we should removed "carcinoma of the lung" as one of the names in the first sentence. [32] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Someone with more expertise than I should review Glucagon rescue, which gives how-to instructions and dosage advice for a potentially life-or-death issue. Should it be totally scrapped, or just re-written? --Animalparty-- ( talk) 05:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The historical consensus is no, but I invite anyone here to comment on establishing one at Talk:Antibacterial#This_article_should_be_named_.22Antibiotics.22. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
We appear to have a Kin 412 class editing. Not sure from where. Have reverted all their changes to cerebral palsy [33] due to reasons mentioned here [34] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The Repressed memory article is in a great need of work. The article is tagged for factual accuracy (since 2012), neutrality and lede. Some discussion here about how to improve it:
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. -- Hordaland ( talk) 11:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am a medical student currently carrying out eHealth/telemedicine/mHealth projects with an NGO in Southern Africa (Botswana).
My main project will involve posting applicable clinical information (derived from focus groups with rural health care workers) on the medical Wiki pages and training the workers to utilize Wikipedia as an application on their mobile devices.
One of the issues raised by the IRB here was the question of a) the general reliability and accuracy of medical information on Wikipedia and b) along the same lines, how to protect and ensure the security of that information, on the off chance that it is misused by a health care worker in rural settings.
I did respond by pointing out the quality control measures WikiProject Medicine has taken to ensure the reliability of information but did not really know how to address the matter of security.
Any thoughts on how to respond to this potential ethical issue would be appreciated, especially from the leadership.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguemed87 ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The iMAS Procedure. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.
The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:
The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.
I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Article in todays Guardian promoting an edit-a-thon. Ian Furst ( talk) 15:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Should we be providing tables of reference ranges on articles? Is this not something that a local laboratory or health service ought to be doing? See here: Cerebrospinal_fluid#Reference_ranges Additionally, am not sure if providing these tabulated values is encyclopedic. Request some input from other editors -- LT910001 ( talk) 15:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Reasoning explained on the nomination page. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adverse_effects_of_fluoroquinolones#Adverse_effects_of_fluoroquinolones Formerly 98 ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Could someone do a quick check on Clodovero Ferri? This is a new article and has a lot of medical terms that should be checked over for accuracy. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 23:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, recent changes to the CBD article are questionable. Alexbrn created this:
From this:
The article was tagged by him but ignored for months until my edit yesterday. The section previous to my edits was:
I am not convinced this is helpful or more informative, and would love to be able to add information to articles here once again, without coming into contact this strange activity from some editors involved with this Project. petrarchan47 t c 01:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This currently redirects to Intrinsic activity -- I suspect not the sort of information many users are looking for regarding, say, measures of efficacy in clinical trials of pharmacological agents. Just a thought, 217.42.178.17 ( talk) 17:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#A_WikiProject_is_a_group_of_people. Thanks X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syndesmosis Procedure. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry van Zile Hyde. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This user is doing this [37]. Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just nominated Cranial nerves for GA, as it has been vastly expanded and worked on. If anyone here would like to help out that'd be great. This is a first for me so I hope you can help me improve the article further if need be. CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
By someone who is active on this project and has worked with GA/FA biographical articles. The question can be found at Talk:Joan_McCracken/GA1#Infobox and concerns the use of the cause of death infobox field and how to use it (or not). Background information can be found at {{ Infobox person}}. The field is defined as death_cause but there are no instructions on how to best make use of it. Viriditas ( talk) 03:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of the edits by Manderson91 ( talk · contribs); here's an example at Penicillin that I noticed on my watchlist. Is this type of information necessary? Should we get it from TOKU-E? In any case, if the information were to remain, it would probably need to be moved and something would have to be done about the Unicode characters in the Private Use Areas that need to be replaced with real arrows (I'm not the best person to do this because I use a screen reader). Graham 87 10:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at Template:WikiProject Medicine and I was surprised to see there was no "pediatrics" or "immunology" task forces. I think that both of these topics should have task forces of their own under the WP:MED umbrella. Thoughts? Jinkinson talk to me 16:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel the major role of the taskforces today is to categorize articles and make it easier for a specialists to come in and improve on their own field. Looking five years from now we will hopefully have more editors, and a slow low-demand process of tagging will be good for them in the long run. (Also didn't realise immunology didn't exist, have tagged several articles.) CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
"Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" was added to wp:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Are there any opinions about this? - Sidelight 12 Talk 19:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor recent moved Healthcare science to Biomedical sciences and then redirected Healthcare science to point to Health science. I think we have a case of different terminology from US/UK, and a bit of an overlap. Any suggestions on a way forward? I think the current status is less than ideal - for example,the NHS in the UK describes healthcare science careers as comprising many of the elements listed at Biomedical sciences now.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 22:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr.Mahalingam Thangavelu MD. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt ( talk) 11:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI Category:Barbers has been proposed to be merged to Category:Hairdressers and the equivalent fictional categories. As historically, barbers are surgeons (hence the red stripe on the barber pole), this may be of interest to you. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 06:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. A paper was just published which said that a lot of health science journals cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
This article just presents data which indicates that the citation of Wikipedia in health science journals has been happening for a long time and is happening more now. It happens more in lower-impact factor journals but still happens in top impact factor journals.
I wrote a response to this article in which I said that the Wikipedia community suggests that actually it would be better for people seeking health information to follow the references which are cited in Wikipedia and reuse those sources after checking them and judging their quality.
I like what I wrote. It would not be my preference to have a role in which I seem to be a representative of the Wikipedia community, but it happens sometimes and I took this as an opportunity for outreach. There are two points on which I would like to comment because I knowingly said things which were not completely aligned with existing Wikipedia policy.
I had limited space in what I could write and I said that Wikipedia should not be cited and that information in Wikipedia should have citations. I know there is more nuance which I was unable to express. I did what I could to get more information out to new health channels.
I am sorry also that BMJ was unable to publish my commentary with an open access license. I am also a supporter of
WikiProject Open and I made the requests that I could to make my paper accessible to everyone online, but I failed to identify a route by means of which to do this. I thought it was important to at least reach BMJ readers and I even asked their readers to come to this board and talk with us. Right now I do not understand what limits I have in sharing my letter, but at least if anyone on this board wants to read it
email me and I will share a copy with you. The paper is available for anyone to read on BMJ. Thanks everyone. Thoughts?
Blue Rasberry
(talk) 16:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I made the requests that I could to make my paper accessible to everyone online, but I failed to identify a route by means of which to do this.- If you have copyright permission to do so, publish a preprint on arXiv or biorXiv.-- cyclopia speak! 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
A psych student is going to be working on Retinohypothalamic tract this semester. I advised her/him to read WP:MEDMOS, and then I noticed that the article isn't included in WikiProject Medicine. If it should be, please add that info to the Talk page. Thank you, -- Hordaland ( talk) 17:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've had to remove most of article text as part of a contributor copyright investigation. Unfortunately this included the introduction, so what remains is now lacking context. Would anyone here be able to help by adding a suitable introduction to the article? January ( talk) 09:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Gardasil has been moved to the article titled Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) Vaccine, Recombinant by A915. This seems unnecessary, and the user who moved the article does not appear to have explained their actions, so could someone opine on this and act accordingly? ComfyKem ( talk) 04:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone. An editor has added material to Dyslexia that does not meet WP:MEDRS, though, it probably meets WP:RS. Please take a look at the talk page discussion and chime in [38]. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 12:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
We reflect what the reliable sources say. They say it's a disorder with a probable biological basis. Using medical sources to cover its etiology and management is appropriate.
Zad
68
17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Let's look at this dispute from a different angle: The article's current Dyslexia#Society and culture section is a short, unexplained (and therefore pointless) bulleted list of seven films about dyslexia. Why doesn't someone get the review at PMID 19479891 about the social model of dyslexia and actually write a couple of sentences about the social model of dyslexia? Good sources about social issues exist. Let's use some of them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
See discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_scientists#Are_physicians_scientists_-_Guardian_article. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Supposedly these are not allowed per [39]. Have started discussion here [40] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just updating the progress on WPMED's goals and noted that some clever fellow has made some of them self-updating (self-updating goals previously being a goal for the goals). Most impressive and my thanks. Lesion ( talk) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
We have a paper here that comments on our coverage of nosocomial infections. Might be useful to use to fix the concerns they raise [41]. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I am wanting to hand out barnstars to all editors who made more than 250 edit to medical articles in 2013 (114 in English 160 in other languages) by bot. Have proposed it here. [42] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey All Wishing to do a bit of research per the proposal here. Concerns / comments? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I nominated the article Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services for GA status last October, but it failed. I would like to get as much help addressing GregJackP's concerns on the GAN subpage linked above as possible, as I am planning on renominating it sometime soon.
There's a debate underway at the above talk page concerning the breadth of concepts which should be covered in the article in question. However, despite the high-profile nature of the article, it has only so far managed to attract the opinions of three editors (the two original parties in disagreement and myself) and this seems like an appropriate place to secure further unbiased and informed editor opinions. Similar notices posted at WP:Wikiproject Biology and WP:Wikiproject Anatomy. Snow ( talk) 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The articles: Organic prepartum and postpartum psychoses, Psychiatric disorders of childbirth, Menstrual psychosis, Postpartum psychosis all were created or heavily edited by User:Son of Fraser and Joyce. Son of Fraser and Joyce contributions This editor was blocked in 2010 for copyright violations. I stumbled across them today when looking at content on Pre-eclampsia/Eclampsia and found some very outdated referenced content--a hundred years old--- in the article Psychiatric disorders of childbirth which I cleaned up. I removed large sections from several of these articles because the content was not well written and poorly sourced. But I didn't look specifically for copyright violations. In all honestly, some of them are so poorly written and sourced that they might need to go to Afd or be redirected. I promised myself that I would rewrite Eclampsia this week in honor of International Women's Day, so can't take on sorting this out until sometime next week (if no one else gets to it first...hint, hint that help would be nice.) :-) Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 04:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
User:West.andrew.g has recently calculated how much medical content we have in all languages of Wikipedia as of the end of 2013. I have put it together as a bookshelf. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Should this old abandoned Afc submision be deleted as a stale draft, or is this a notable topic that should be improved instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Can some regulars comment at Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol/Archives/2020#Marinol.2C_Cannabis.2C_and_Mortality? I'm worried about the amount of original research which is going on trying to debunk peer reviewed articles, and the use of blogs to counter peer reviewed sources (and also claims of conspiracies). I'm not medically trained and have no conclusions myself. Someone with experience in medical research to interpret the specific literature would be specifically helpful, Second Quantization ( talk) 10:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
PMID 21353301 (a 2011 meta-analysis) is one of the papers being discussed. There are claims that nobody has ever "scientifically proven" that cannabis can kill people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Dr. Azzam ( User:AminMDMA) and I were interviewed in video about Wikipedia and health.
The interviewer was Brian Lehrer.
See details about Dr. Azzam's class at Education_Program:University_of_California,_San_Francisco_(UCSF)/Expanding_WikiProject:_Medicine_(Fall_2013). Some of you may be aware that this class was highly covered in external media, including in The Atlantic and The New York Times.
Anyone wishing to become more involved in the education program could ask me anything or talk to any of the people at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard. It is my wish that more medical schools and health organizations contribute to Wikipedia. I also wish for the success of Dr. Azzam because he has put trust and his time in Wikipedia and our community far beyond what most others have. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tibial Nerve Stimulation. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
What are peoples thoughts on this? Supported by a small RCT and the pop press it received. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I figured it out. On Oct 8 there's a press release from U Florida which is republished by Futurity.org a non-profit (with many Univeristy "partners") that features the university discoveries. Someone posts the link to the Futurity article on Reddit and it goes viral within the site (2700 upvotes and hundereds of comments). Oct 10/11 (2 and 3 days later) it's picked up by CBS, NPR, FOX, USA Today and gets bigger after that. If you want to know what special interest story will be on the news tomorrow, check Reddit today. Ian Furst ( talk) 04:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
VMAT2 is the CNS vesicular transporter for not only the biogenic amines DA, NE, EPI, 5-HT, and HIS, but likely also for the trace amines TYR, PEA, and thyronamine (THYR) ... [Trace aminergic] neurons in mammalian CNS would be identifiable as neurons expressing VMAT2 for storage, and the biosynthetic enzyme aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC). ... AMPH release of DA from synapses requires both an action at VMAT2 to release DA to the cytoplasm and a concerted release of DA from the cytoplasm via "reverse transport" through DAT.
Despite the challenges in determining synaptic vesicle pH, the proton gradient across the vesicle membrane is of fundamental importance for its function. Exposure of isolated catecholamine vesicles to protonophores collapses the pH gradient and rapidly redistributes transmitter from inside to outside the vesicle. ... Amphetamine and its derivatives like methamphetamine are weak base compounds that are the only widely used class of drugs known to elicit transmitter release by a non-exocytic mechanism. As substrates for both DAT and VMAT, amphetamines can be taken up to the cytosol and then sequestered in vesicles, where they act to collapse the vesicular pH gradient.
Three important new aspects of TAs action have recently emerged: (a) inhibition of firing due to increased release of dopamine; (b) reduction of D2 and GABAB receptor-mediated inhibitory responses (excitatory effects due to disinhibition); and (c) a direct TA1 receptor-mediated activation of GIRK channels which produce cell membrane hyperpolarization.
• tonically activates inwardly rectifying K(+) channels, which reduces the basal firing frequency of dopamine (DA) neurons of the ventral tegmental area (VTA)
AMPH also increases intracellular calcium (Gnegy et al., 2004) that is associated with calmodulin/CamKII activation (Wei et al., 2007) and modulation and trafficking of the DAT (Fog et al., 2006; Sakrikar et al., 2012). ... For example, AMPH increases extracellular glutamate in various brain regions including the striatum, VTA and NAc (Del Arco et al., 1999; Kim et al., 1981; Mora and Porras, 1993; Xue et al., 1996), but it has not been established whether this change can be explained by increased synaptic release or by reduced clearance of glutamate. ... DHK-sensitive, EAAT2 uptake was not altered by AMPH (Figure 1A). The remaining glutamate transport in these midbrain cultures is likely mediated by EAAT3 and this component was significantly decreased by AMPH
AMPH and METH also stimulate DA efflux, which is thought to be a crucial element in their addictive properties [80], although the mechanisms do not appear to be identical for each drug [81]. These processes are PKCβ– and CaMK–dependent [72, 82], and PKCβ knock-out mice display decreased AMPH-induced efflux that correlates with reduced AMPH-induced locomotion [72].
![]() | 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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I've been developing a system for having works peer reviewed in Wikiversity (see Wikiversity:Peer review). With the success of already peer reviewed works, I am now confident that I'll be able to arrange for a peer review of most works consisting of original medical research. Therefore, until further notice I'll arrange for peer review of medical research works for free if the following conditions are met:
Let me know if you're interested in having a work peer reviewed. You may also want to sign up as a potential peer reviewer at Wikiversity School of Medicine. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 10:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
According to Alexbrn spinal manipulation has no direct connection to chiropractic but it was previously that there is a connection because chiropractors' main modality is spinal manipulation. After User:Middle 8 explained this on the talk page I thought the discussion would be over and editors would move on but the discussion is continuing.
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) This 2013
systematic review was deleted.This is being discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Spinal manipulation and chiropractic. The current discussion on the talk page is at Talk:Chiropractic#A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS compliant sources are being deleted per fringe but fringe is not applicable. This was previously explained at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Is WHO guideline a MEDRS.
Background information: Alexbrn, do you want to delete all reliable sources from chiropractic solely based on being written in chiropractic journals? [1] [2] [3] [4] Chiropractic peer-reviewed journals are also reliable. See WP:MEDASSESS.
According to the 2010 source: "METHODS: The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs." [5]
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)There was a previous discussion about this source. User:Puhlaa originally added the source to the article back in 2011 and the discussion resulted in keeping the source in the body of the article.
The current discussion on the talk page is at Talk:Chiropractic#Fringe journal or MEDRS compliant?. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I explained the sources meet WP:MEDASSESS and fringe does not apply but Alexbrn claims chiropractic is a fringe topic. Chiropractic is not fringe. An analysis of the use of complementary health practices for back pain, based on data from the 2002 NHIS, found that chiropractic was by far the most commonly used therapy. Among survey respondents who had used any of these therapies for their back pain, 74 percent (approximately 4 million Americans) had used chiropractic. Among those who had used chiropractic for back pain, 66 percent perceived “great benefit” from their treatments.. It was previously explained that Two-thirds of primary care physicians in the US recommend it. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I am being reverted on this article by Alexbrn (and only by him) after making some additions from reliable secondary sources and adding a few sentences that were more accurate to the sources provided by Alexbrn. My purpose in bringing this here is not to complain about Alexbrn, but to get some more eyes on this and to begin a discussion on the talk page to hash this issue out. Alexbrn has a history of reverting my edits with inadequate explanations or ones I find to be lacking in merit (we clearly do not see eye to eye even a little), so I would really like to get more outside opinions from other veteran editors. I am also being accused of edit warring after a single reversion (he reverted my edits a second time) and I'm not going to violate 3RR. Here are the diffs in question: [6] and [7] (poor source considering I used secondary sources such as recent peer-reviewed journal articles), and [8]. I believed the edits I made were neutral, used simpler language for a broader audience in the lead, were far more accurate to the sources if you read the 1998 Guglielmo paper (what was originally cited, now added on Bledsoe and Salzberg) and was reverted. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 06:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what the article talk page is for. There were problems with your edit, some serious.
Also, as a general issue:
I'm not suggesting we put distinct content in the lead of the article, it should be in the body of the article as well for consistency, on that point we agree. I see you having discussions on this page all the time, it did not occur to me that I needed to inform you that I am consulting other editors about a content dispute so we can include more in the discussion. I'm also not making a "personalized complaint about you", as you say, that's one way to look at it I suppose. What I am doing is discussing with other editors who have not been actively editing the article that you and I are having a content dispute and why I disagree with your reversions and am therefore asking for outside opinions. Your accusations are not appreciated. I have not filed any formal complaint about you or sought action against you at all. Speaking of courtesy, you have been quite condescending in tone and have attempted to order me around, both of which are also not appreciated. However, I would appreciate it if in the future you would attempt to have a civil discussion with me rather than use a curt tone. I already know you have the page watchlisted, that is obvious from earlier edits.
You've also yet to explain the reversion of the other edits I made to the first paragraph of the lead which was simplifying the language and removing what is clearly an attempt at a negative connotation with specific wording. The quote you used "To many in the allopathic community, the principles articulated by Still and embraced by his followers seemed like so much pseudoscientific dogma". is out of context-it is clearly referring to the past and is written in the past tense. Notice that it specifically says "that suspicion continued for many decades" indicating that the previous sentence was talking about at least several decades ago. It is not about modern perceptions. Here is the quote for all to see in context with the preceding and following paragraphs intact: "For much of its nearly 125-year history, the osteopathic profession has had an uneasy, sometimes bitter relationship with the M.D. community. It was not until the mid-1960s that D.O.s were permitted to join the American Medical Association. Today, about 8,000 D.O.s (or 20 percent of their total) belong to the AMA.
For many years, M.D.s looked upon D.O.s as cultists, determined to practice according to the osteopathic principles laid out in 1874 by founder Andrew Taylor Still. An allopathic physician himself, Still rejected the prevailing medicine of his day, in particular its reliance on drugs and surgery. In its place, he developed an osteopathic approach to care-one that traced physiological disturbances in the body to abnormalities in the musculoskeletal system. By employing hands-on therapy to correct these structural abnormalities, he believed, physicians could enhance the body's natural tendency toward health and self-healing.
To many in the allopathic community, the principles articulated by Still and embraced by his followers seemed like so much pseudoscientific dogma. That suspicion continued for many decades.
Shut out by the M.D. community, D.O.s started their own schools, hospitals, and practices, first in the Midwest and then in other regions of the country. In 1897, they also founded their own version of the AMAthe American Association for the Advancement of Osteopathy, renamed the American Osteopathic Association in 1901. Before long, D.O.s and M.D.s inhabited two parallel and, in many ways, distinct spheres of American medicine."
As for the pseudoscience bit, there is only one instance of the word pseudoscience in the entire article and it is the part about Stephen Barrett here: ""The pseudoscience within osteopathy can't compete with the science," says retired allopathic psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, author of 44 books, including "The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America," "Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions," and "Reader's Guide to `Alternative' Health Methods."
Barrett, who maintains a Web site (www.quackwatch. com), recently exchanged strongly worded letters with the AOA over an article he posted on the Net entitled "Dubious Osteopathic Practices." Most D.O.s, he writes, practice a brand of medicine that's identical to M.D. medicine, "except for [a] slight additional emphasis on musculoskeletal diagnosis and treatment." But a minority of D.O.s, he argues, persist in the use of much more "dubious treatments" like cranial therapy, which he describes as a manipulation of the bones of the skull to relieve pain and cure other ailments." Please show me where else in the referenced paper there are other critics aside from Stephen Barrett criticizing OMT as pseudoscientific. As mentioned earlier, I already attempted to compromise and modify the statement from referenced sources to say Stephen Barrett and Bryan Bledsoe. I already discussed the bit about Dr. Jordan Cohen of the AAMC if that's what you're referring to. You already added his quote and it states specifically that skepticism enters in the M.D. community when claims are made that OMT can be used for non-musculoskeletal complaints. No mention of pseudoscience in his quote whatsoever and it is not ours to interpret. I can provide that quote here too if needed. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 04:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:RS "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."
None of the references contain a statement that most scientists or scholars hold a certain view about OMT. As it says in the above quote, per Wikipedia policy, it should be the selected individual opinions and should not be phrased as the general consensus. Also, the edits regarding the language of the article's lead need to be addressed. My attempts to employ simplified language without changing the meaning and in another instance changing the language to remove an implicit negative connotation and make the language more neutral were reverted. These issues need to be addressed. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 21:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Wondering if there is support for a bot to convert cite PMID and cite DOI to cite journal? I am currently doing this manually for all articles being put up for translation as the first two are not supported in other languages. If there is support here I will than apply for permission at the bot page and possibly offer a prize for its creation. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
New article. Not even sure where to start. Sigh. WP:POVFORK comes to mind. Yobol ( talk) 23:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Is this a notable physician, and are the references acceptable? It would need editing to remove unverifiable detail. — Anne Delong ( talk) 05:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The above article has been nominated for deletion here: [12]. Lesion ( talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear all,
It may be of interest that Cancer Research UK, an organisation based in London, UK, is looking for a Wikipedian in Residence to deliver a six month full time project. The application closes tomorrow, 12th February. I hope those of you interested in helping in this project will be able to apply. Details are here: https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candidate/so/pm/1/pl/4/opp/482-Wikipedian-in-Residence/en-GB
Many thanks, Daria Cybulska (WMUK) ( talk) 10:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I just came across this about a new Wellcome site, which looks very useful. http://wellcomeimages.org/ LeadSongDog come howl! 23:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
With some exceptions (e.g. delirium and now cancer), professional and advocacy groups have not in any way engaged with this WikiProject to improve the quality of articles relevant to their interest. That is strange, because as Laurent & Vickers ( PMID 19390105) showed, anyone searching the major search engines will probably find Wikipedia articles before they find the material published by these organisations.
But imagine if the American Thyroid Association decided that they wanted to get involved in improving the articles on thyroid disease (COI: recently been working on hypothyroidism), what should our response be? Particularly if they offer expert input in indentifying useful information and high-quality sources?
Perhaps something else: should we be making an effort to approach these organisations and suggest that they take a more active role in supporting the development of high-quality Wikipedia content in the area of their interest? I can already foresee the problems, e.g. how to stop encyclopedia articles from turning into patient information leaflets ( WP:YOU everywhere), and how to sensitively discuss common controversies. I'm interested to hear what the Project has to say about this. JFW | T@lk 09:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing bad wording on my part. I meant more of a social contract/understanding rather than something formal. We help them find a better way to reach their populations (e.g. point out the relevant pages) in return for them training someone that will follow the rules of the road on Wikipedia. I can create interactive learning modules (e.g. mix video, slides, questions they can answer) in HTML5 pretty easily, but there would need to be somewhere to host it. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK has an Expert outreach programme which involves developing relationships with scholarly societies, to deliver events, create publications and so on. It started off with Cancer Research UK, as you note, but the Royal Society of Chemistry, Society of Biology, Medical Research Council, British Psychological Society, Royal Society, Parkinson's UK and in total about a couple of dozen scholarly societies or research units have been involved. The relationship with the Medical Research Council goes back to July 2011. Influenced by the contacts I've made through this programme, I've been working on brochures including one on how Wikimedia can help researchers with impact and public engagement. One of the outcomes is my current work with Jisc, through which I can influence universities and other holders of scholarly and cultural content. I think it helps to have a national angle on these things because the funding/research environments will influence how receptive the societies are to working with us. Wikimedia UK is currently calling for organisations to host Wikipedians in Residence, so if you have societies in mind, nudge them or meet them to persuade them of the value of taking this up. MartinPoulter Jisc ( talk) 12:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Ian Furst: Wikimedia UK has a Moodle-based Virtual Learning Environment. Would it be a suitable host for your interactive materials? MartinPoulter Jisc ( talk) 12:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion got me thinking further about the difficulties in recruiting good new editors through outreach initiatives. For example, the interesting medical one in Coventry a while back, where a varied selection of medical professionals came along, having been granted a day off work (perfectly reasonably I think) for educational purposes. Last time I checked virtually none of the participants had done any significant editing. Scarcely a surprise perhaps, given habitual workloads...
So does this apparent lack of effectiveness, in terms of recruitment, indicate an outreach failure? Not necessarily, imo. Many of the people there seemed to find the day interesting (and it also served useful secondary purposes within the MED project).
Taken together, it's encouraged me to think of outreach in a slightly different light, as an educational rather than a recruitment opportunity. I suspect most good long-term contributors gravitate to Wikipedia of their own accord, through a combination of an interest in providing free and reliable information and other personal factors. Outreach is a good opportunity to explain to people how Wikipedia works. But I'm less sure that it can realistically be seen as a major recruitment opportunity (at least in the short term). 2c,
109.158.185.136 (
talk) 19:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please excuse the previous post if it seems overly critical of your reflections. It was not my intent. I agree that sharing the culture of Wikipedia through face-to-face outreach with professionals has the potential to increase engagement. However, it’s a time-intensive (albeit highly personal) means of improving end-user engagement. My belief is there’s a finite supply of time available from the Wikipedians who have the energy and talent for outreach programs. If they’re willing to volunteer the time (regardless of the potential outcome), what is the more fruitful way to spend it? I believe it’s a trade-off in the richness and reach of relationships. It’s possible we could achieve a similar cultural understanding for the end-user through a less rich, less time-intensive social media program. I don’t think it is as easy to achieve the level of relationship necessary to engage a new editor without some sort of personal interaction. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The above article has also been nominated for deletion here: [13]. Lesion ( talk) 18:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
In schizophrenia research, the basic symptoms concept has become used in Continental Europe, at least, but there seems to have been less interest in the English speaking world. Also, of self-disorders, a related concept, there has been recent mention in The Oxford Handbook of the Self (2011), edited by Shaun Gallagher and published by the Oxford University Press, in an essay titled "Self-Consciousness in Schizophrenia" (pp. 521-546), written by Louis A. Sass and Josef Parnas. This source references foundational texts and authors (such as Henry Bergson) who have become notable in Europe, but less so in the English-speaking world; it also references studies done on the self-disorders, showing that they "aggregate" in schizophrenia spectrum disorders, with significantly lower rates in non-spectrum disorders (pp. 524-525). As well, a research of the literature on basic symptoms of schizophrenia (on, e.g., PubMed) shows many articles; articles on self-disorders also appear.
However, there seems to be little mention of them on the articles on the English Wikipedia, at least, dealing with schizophrenia. There was a small, single paragraph mention of them on the Causes of Schizophrenia page, but little else.
I have to ask, does this concept carry little weight, or is the English Wikipedia not giving enough due weight to basic symptoms and self-disorders because of a lack of a global perspective on the issue? Are basic symptoms and self-disorders notable enough to receive their own Wikipedia article? -- Beneficii ( talk) 19:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Found Hydranencephaly, which could really do with an image. I took a look with a google free image & google site:*.gov , but didn't find any free. Is there any way to tag an articles talk page? CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
{{Image requested|medical subjects|of=}}
for the talk page, at the top.
Lesion (
talk) 11:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)The WHO guideline:
has been used in the Chiropractic article at least since February 2008, judging by the accessdate. It was extensively re-assessed as a source during 2010-11 as evidenced by the talk page archives Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 31 onwards to my knowledge. Its use in 7 places in the article has not been challenged, but its use in the lead has by JzG ( talk · contribs) (see above discussions). I would therefore like to request other opinions on its suitability as a MEDRS-compliant source to make statements about the safety of chiropractic. Some of the arguments brought forward so far are:
Now I've been through this treadmill before and I know when I'm starting to get annoyed by another editor. Rather than have us bickering, I'd be grateful if someone would do me (and Guy) the kindness of telling one or the other (or both) that we're right or wrong about whether WHO guidelines from 2005 are an acceptable MEDRS source for the safety of chiropractic, please. -- RexxS ( talk) 21:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is another source that was deleted. I think the source is reliable and the text passes verifiable. See ( PMID 23171540). See Talk:Chiropractic#Reliability of Chiropr and Osteopat. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Our study suggests that chiropractors tend to establish their practices in areas that also have higher supply of primary care physicians. This is likely explained by the influence of market conditions on both groups: both are likely to locate in areas that will support their practices – however, there are many other personal and professional factors that our data did not account for. This finding may suggests [sic] that chiropractors function in a complementary role, as opposed to an alternative role, to primary care physicians.
So if, for example, a professor at a major university publishes an article claiming that abortion causes breast cancer in a non-indexed journal, is he is still an expert? I'm not positive, but I think that being an expert doesn't give you a pass on submitting your work through the peer-review process. Jinkinson talk to me 01:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
My argument above was based on quoting the WP:FRINGE guidance directly: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles". You countered that WP:FRINGE does not apply here. Can you explain why it does not apply? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing a number of edit summaries like "You can't delete reliable sources" but that's simply not true, there are other policies like
WP:DUEWEIGHT (part of
WP:NPOV) and
WP:FRINGE which is a related guideline that indicate that not every thing that can be reliably sourced will always be guaranteed a place in an article. The arguments that simply repeat "It's reliably sourced" simply have no weight unless they address this.
Zad
68
19:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This by Guy was a SYN violation. "Although" is SYN. These are different sources that are not connected. The part "published by practitioners" is not what the source says and this is a violation of WP:ASSERT. I think I am being unfairly targeted at ANI. Adding original research is not editorial discretion. Deleting reliable sources such as WHO is not appropriate according to a number of other editors.
For supporting keeping reliable sources such the WHO source in the chiropractic article and improving the article I think I am unfairly being targeted. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I made this – {{ Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Quackstar}} – for two editors in particular who I think have consistently and laboriously gone way out of their way to fix countless perceived errors in medical articles over the past few months. I also made it because it saddened me that there was nothing like this on WP:MED before now.
The new barnstar: a sense of humor is required when pushing this button ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ ⇒
| ||
---|---|---|
|
I didn't feel like making it conform to 2.0 standards (at least, not yet), sorry.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained) 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Per the ICD 10 these two terms are the same. I merged the two topics a while ago. Which should we use as the name of the article? Discussion here [17] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Article feedback is going away entirely. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 123#Article Feedback: Next Steps if you've been using it on any articles. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am using it for the translation project. We are looking for feedback from readers on whether or not they find they translations useful. Unfortunate to see it go. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rotator cuff arthropathy. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion at the Help Desk ( saved revision), three articles on what seems to be some fringe theory in mental health (with some sort of deconstructivist flair) have been nominated for deletion:
This seems like it might be within the scope of this project or some taskforce therein. Thanks. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently working on a major restructuring and rewrite of the article, and wish to get it to at least B-class, but hopefully even higher. That way we can apply for DYK. If anyone is interested in helping out there is a draft version over here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve. Would do especially well with some help about clinical significance. CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Requesting further input here Talk:Obesity#BMI_ranges. Also the WHO uses "weight" however a user feels that they are wrong and it should be "mass". What are peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the term for the air that remains in the upper respiratory tract, trachea, primary bronchi etc during an inhalation and never reaches the alveoli before the exhalation? Lesion ( talk) 22:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
While you're all thinking about all things lung-related, can anyone answer a pure-curiosity question for me? I read a bit about the history of CPAP machines. Apparently, the treatment for severe obstructive sleep apnea was an emergency tracheotomy—really like an emergency: you show up at the emergency room not having really slept for months, and they did a tracheotomy as soon as they could get a surgeon and an anesthesiologist into the same room. Why couldn't you just intubate the patient, get a good night's sleep, and schedule the surgery on a semi-elective basis? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone heard of this phenomenon. I can just say that the article would never pass AfC today, and it could use some looking at, whether anything usable be merged to spina bifida? Sources are rather poor. CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have any expertise in this area. We've had a user add primary research about harvesting stem cells from wisdom teeth. I have no idea if it's critically important, cutting edge research (and leaving a primary source is OK) or just an extension of research that's already been done on non-tooth sources (in which case I'd wait until secondary sources can be provided). Ian Furst ( talk) 13:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
An IP editor has suggested making these stand alone articles. Tried to find a WHO definition for these terms and failed. Maybe someone else will have better luck to help resolve this. Lesion ( talk) 12:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed many uncited assertions from this article. There is a merge proposal at the gum arabic talk page [21]. (I am not sure if this is the proper venue--if this is posted in the wrong place, feel free to move it elsewhere. Thank you.) Kablammo ( talk) 13:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
We should think of some way to make writing medical content on wikipedia count towards CME... Thoughts? Lesion ( talk) 21:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Revolutionary.... I like that. Ian Furst ( talk) 01:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
On Anesthesia there are about 5 different professional societies linked from the external links subsection. Is there a policy about the use of the external link section? Should I leave or remove them? Thx. Ian Furst ( talk) 01:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Most already have pages linked to their specialty (e.g. Anesthesiologist, Nurse anesthetist, etc...) Within those articles there are the links. I think it gets too off topic for the general page on Anesthesia. Ian Furst ( talk) 17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter: Talk:Condom#STD/STI protection. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Article needs some neurology love. Related article on a major foodstuff has a casava#Food use processing and toxicity section which needs some neuro/pharma attention too. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a recent story on NPR about a class at UCSF where the professor, Amin Azzam, instructs his students to improve medicine-related Wikipedia articles. Thought I'd put it here for the consideration of all WikiProject Medicine members. Jinkinson talk to me 19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the largest organ that Cells Alive System freezers have been shown to help preserve beyond traditional cryopreservation? 114.94.27.250 ( talk) 23:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Please also share your general opinion of them at Template talk:Emerging technologies#Justification for inclusion of CAS freezers? (Furthermore, doesn't that template need some emerging vaccine and engineered genetic therapies?) 114.94.27.250 ( talk) 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)</ref> and{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)By the way this study has a poor control group. [22]Why compare -3 degree in magic fridge with 4 degrees in normal frige? Why not compare -3 in magic fridge with magnet on and -3 in magic fridge with magnet off. One could even blind it where the researchers DO NOT KNOW which magic fridge has the magnet on or off? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Needs attention re WP:MEDRS compliance. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The article says "Dermabrasion should not be confused with microdermabrasion which is a newer and non-surgical cosmetic procedure performed by non-physician personnel, nurses, estheticians, medical assistants, and most recently untrained individuals in their homes" -- and then the whole rest of the article appears to be about microdermabrasion. I suggest splitting the article into two. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I came across this article via its mention at Body fat percentage, both of which seem written like an advert. I'm afraid I don't have time to go through it at the moment, and just wanted to give a head's up. Thanks, a13ean ( talk) 19:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Could someone with medical knowledge have a look at the new article In Vivo Bioreactor? It has some clearly promotional content to it but there may be useful, salvageable content as well. Thank you. Peacock ( talk) 12:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I was watching a viral video featuring a kid who suffers from Schwartz-Jampel syndrome. I was astonished at the red link. Maybe this happens a lot in this field, but still, that surprised me. Just sayin'. :) -- Elitre ( talk) 18:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about this, if anything. There's a fairly large number of microbiology articles containing passages with books from Caister press cited as references. Many of these passages have been copy/pasted directly from the books. I believe that all of these passages were entered into the articles by a single editor who has acknowledged a conflict of interest. That editor has left Wikipedia. Over the past year I've been checking every passage cited by a Caister press book that I encounter and deleting the passage if it was copied from the cited book. I'm currently cleaning up Food microbiology. I ended up deleting a majority of the article, and I still haven't completed checking all of the sections. Sometimes the passage comes not from the cited book but from another book from the same publisher, making detection of the copy/paste more difficult (although I'm sure there's an easier way to detect this). In many articles, a citation of a book from Caister press has been added to the end of the first sentence or paragraph in the lead, even if there was already another citation. In other cases, a new article was created closely related to an existing article, with the references in the new article citing only books from Caister press (although other editors may have made additions later with other citations). For example, we have Systems biology and Systems microbiology; Food microbiology and Food Microbiology (although these were later merged); Microbial ecology and Environmental microbiology (also merged later). It's possible that I managed to clear out most of the copy/paste issues, but I continue to find more Caister copy/paste issues when browsing Wikipedia. What could be done, if anything? CatPath ( talk) 08:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
"Caister Academic Press" site:en.wikipedia.org
gives 602 hits (not all of them problematical), so we have an idea of the potential size of the problem. --
RexxS (
talk) 19:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this a true redlink or am I not looking in the right places? Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 21:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello again, medical experts. Another old Afc submission which has been tagged as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone who is experienced at GA review wants to work with me on this one, please let me know. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 01:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is the article Paralysis so terribly bad (and short)? Abductive ( reasoning) 07:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Disorders causing seizures, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
In a recent edit, information has been added to the article lede claiming that tea tree oil can have some medical benefit including treating herpes and lice. These claims are sourced to PMID 22998411 which, on the face of it, looks a potentially reasonable source. However the claims seem rather exceptional and/or in contradiction to sources that were being used in the article. The article itself goes further, saying tea tree oil is an "anti-skin cancer agent". Could somebody have a look at this source/content and offer an assessment - how reliable is this? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The developer of this intervention has been engaging constructively in talk page discussion ( Talk:The Lightning Process#help on accuracy) and has he been informed about our stringent sourcing guidelines for clinical claims. When commenting [29] I said I would refer the topic to WT:MED to try to elicit further feedback (and I see the page was already discussed here before, in 2011). Regards, 81.147.166.111 ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I could use the eyes of a more experienced editor. I went to the above page and removed some unreferenced claims and tried to make it more WP:NPOV only to have it reverted by user Shastri (doesn't have a user page) within hours. Same name as the person who conceived the "revolutionary Regenerative Medicine paradigm" and the senior author on all the papers referenced. Not sure where to take it from here. Thx. Ian Furst ( talk) 19:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether or not it's worth nominating this for a WP:featured picture - File:TAAR1 Dopamine.svg. I have no experience with the process, so I'm just wondering if anyone familiar with featured pictures (diagrams) thinks its up to par. Besides the fact that it took forever to make, it's more or less the culmination of everything I've learned while researching amphetamine, TAAR1, and trace amines for the past several months. Sort of surprising that there's an endogenous compound with identical pharmacodynamics (same targets, roughly the same affinities) to amphetamine, no? ;)
Transcluded image insertion template
| |
---|---|
Note: there's an annotated wikilink in this image that isn't part of the original (the "via AADC").
|
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a question of if we should removed "carcinoma of the lung" as one of the names in the first sentence. [32] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Someone with more expertise than I should review Glucagon rescue, which gives how-to instructions and dosage advice for a potentially life-or-death issue. Should it be totally scrapped, or just re-written? --Animalparty-- ( talk) 05:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The historical consensus is no, but I invite anyone here to comment on establishing one at Talk:Antibacterial#This_article_should_be_named_.22Antibiotics.22. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
We appear to have a Kin 412 class editing. Not sure from where. Have reverted all their changes to cerebral palsy [33] due to reasons mentioned here [34] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The Repressed memory article is in a great need of work. The article is tagged for factual accuracy (since 2012), neutrality and lede. Some discussion here about how to improve it:
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability. -- Hordaland ( talk) 11:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello all,
I am a medical student currently carrying out eHealth/telemedicine/mHealth projects with an NGO in Southern Africa (Botswana).
My main project will involve posting applicable clinical information (derived from focus groups with rural health care workers) on the medical Wiki pages and training the workers to utilize Wikipedia as an application on their mobile devices.
One of the issues raised by the IRB here was the question of a) the general reliability and accuracy of medical information on Wikipedia and b) along the same lines, how to protect and ensure the security of that information, on the off chance that it is misused by a health care worker in rural settings.
I did respond by pointing out the quality control measures WikiProject Medicine has taken to ensure the reliability of information but did not really know how to address the matter of security.
Any thoughts on how to respond to this potential ethical issue would be appreciated, especially from the leadership.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguemed87 ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The iMAS Procedure. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.
The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:
The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.
I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Article in todays Guardian promoting an edit-a-thon. Ian Furst ( talk) 15:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Should we be providing tables of reference ranges on articles? Is this not something that a local laboratory or health service ought to be doing? See here: Cerebrospinal_fluid#Reference_ranges Additionally, am not sure if providing these tabulated values is encyclopedic. Request some input from other editors -- LT910001 ( talk) 15:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Reasoning explained on the nomination page. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adverse_effects_of_fluoroquinolones#Adverse_effects_of_fluoroquinolones Formerly 98 ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Could someone do a quick check on Clodovero Ferri? This is a new article and has a lot of medical terms that should be checked over for accuracy. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 23:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, recent changes to the CBD article are questionable. Alexbrn created this:
From this:
The article was tagged by him but ignored for months until my edit yesterday. The section previous to my edits was:
I am not convinced this is helpful or more informative, and would love to be able to add information to articles here once again, without coming into contact this strange activity from some editors involved with this Project. petrarchan47 t c 01:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This currently redirects to Intrinsic activity -- I suspect not the sort of information many users are looking for regarding, say, measures of efficacy in clinical trials of pharmacological agents. Just a thought, 217.42.178.17 ( talk) 17:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#A_WikiProject_is_a_group_of_people. Thanks X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Syndesmosis Procedure. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry van Zile Hyde. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This user is doing this [37]. Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just nominated Cranial nerves for GA, as it has been vastly expanded and worked on. If anyone here would like to help out that'd be great. This is a first for me so I hope you can help me improve the article further if need be. CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
By someone who is active on this project and has worked with GA/FA biographical articles. The question can be found at Talk:Joan_McCracken/GA1#Infobox and concerns the use of the cause of death infobox field and how to use it (or not). Background information can be found at {{ Infobox person}}. The field is defined as death_cause but there are no instructions on how to best make use of it. Viriditas ( talk) 03:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of the edits by Manderson91 ( talk · contribs); here's an example at Penicillin that I noticed on my watchlist. Is this type of information necessary? Should we get it from TOKU-E? In any case, if the information were to remain, it would probably need to be moved and something would have to be done about the Unicode characters in the Private Use Areas that need to be replaced with real arrows (I'm not the best person to do this because I use a screen reader). Graham 87 10:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at Template:WikiProject Medicine and I was surprised to see there was no "pediatrics" or "immunology" task forces. I think that both of these topics should have task forces of their own under the WP:MED umbrella. Thoughts? Jinkinson talk to me 16:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I feel the major role of the taskforces today is to categorize articles and make it easier for a specialists to come in and improve on their own field. Looking five years from now we will hopefully have more editors, and a slow low-demand process of tagging will be good for them in the long run. (Also didn't realise immunology didn't exist, have tagged several articles.) CFCF ( talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
"Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" was added to wp:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Are there any opinions about this? - Sidelight 12 Talk 19:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor recent moved Healthcare science to Biomedical sciences and then redirected Healthcare science to point to Health science. I think we have a case of different terminology from US/UK, and a bit of an overlap. Any suggestions on a way forward? I think the current status is less than ideal - for example,the NHS in the UK describes healthcare science careers as comprising many of the elements listed at Biomedical sciences now.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 22:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr.Mahalingam Thangavelu MD. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 00:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt ( talk) 11:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI Category:Barbers has been proposed to be merged to Category:Hairdressers and the equivalent fictional categories. As historically, barbers are surgeons (hence the red stripe on the barber pole), this may be of interest to you. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 06:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. A paper was just published which said that a lot of health science journals cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
This article just presents data which indicates that the citation of Wikipedia in health science journals has been happening for a long time and is happening more now. It happens more in lower-impact factor journals but still happens in top impact factor journals.
I wrote a response to this article in which I said that the Wikipedia community suggests that actually it would be better for people seeking health information to follow the references which are cited in Wikipedia and reuse those sources after checking them and judging their quality.
I like what I wrote. It would not be my preference to have a role in which I seem to be a representative of the Wikipedia community, but it happens sometimes and I took this as an opportunity for outreach. There are two points on which I would like to comment because I knowingly said things which were not completely aligned with existing Wikipedia policy.
I had limited space in what I could write and I said that Wikipedia should not be cited and that information in Wikipedia should have citations. I know there is more nuance which I was unable to express. I did what I could to get more information out to new health channels.
I am sorry also that BMJ was unable to publish my commentary with an open access license. I am also a supporter of
WikiProject Open and I made the requests that I could to make my paper accessible to everyone online, but I failed to identify a route by means of which to do this. I thought it was important to at least reach BMJ readers and I even asked their readers to come to this board and talk with us. Right now I do not understand what limits I have in sharing my letter, but at least if anyone on this board wants to read it
email me and I will share a copy with you. The paper is available for anyone to read on BMJ. Thanks everyone. Thoughts?
Blue Rasberry
(talk) 16:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I made the requests that I could to make my paper accessible to everyone online, but I failed to identify a route by means of which to do this.- If you have copyright permission to do so, publish a preprint on arXiv or biorXiv.-- cyclopia speak! 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
A psych student is going to be working on Retinohypothalamic tract this semester. I advised her/him to read WP:MEDMOS, and then I noticed that the article isn't included in WikiProject Medicine. If it should be, please add that info to the Talk page. Thank you, -- Hordaland ( talk) 17:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've had to remove most of article text as part of a contributor copyright investigation. Unfortunately this included the introduction, so what remains is now lacking context. Would anyone here be able to help by adding a suitable introduction to the article? January ( talk) 09:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Gardasil has been moved to the article titled Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent (Types 6, 11, 16, and 18) Vaccine, Recombinant by A915. This seems unnecessary, and the user who moved the article does not appear to have explained their actions, so could someone opine on this and act accordingly? ComfyKem ( talk) 04:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone. An editor has added material to Dyslexia that does not meet WP:MEDRS, though, it probably meets WP:RS. Please take a look at the talk page discussion and chime in [38]. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 12:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
We reflect what the reliable sources say. They say it's a disorder with a probable biological basis. Using medical sources to cover its etiology and management is appropriate.
Zad
68
17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Let's look at this dispute from a different angle: The article's current Dyslexia#Society and culture section is a short, unexplained (and therefore pointless) bulleted list of seven films about dyslexia. Why doesn't someone get the review at PMID 19479891 about the social model of dyslexia and actually write a couple of sentences about the social model of dyslexia? Good sources about social issues exist. Let's use some of them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
See discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_scientists#Are_physicians_scientists_-_Guardian_article. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Supposedly these are not allowed per [39]. Have started discussion here [40] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I was just updating the progress on WPMED's goals and noted that some clever fellow has made some of them self-updating (self-updating goals previously being a goal for the goals). Most impressive and my thanks. Lesion ( talk) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
We have a paper here that comments on our coverage of nosocomial infections. Might be useful to use to fix the concerns they raise [41]. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I am wanting to hand out barnstars to all editors who made more than 250 edit to medical articles in 2013 (114 in English 160 in other languages) by bot. Have proposed it here. [42] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey All Wishing to do a bit of research per the proposal here. Concerns / comments? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I nominated the article Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services for GA status last October, but it failed. I would like to get as much help addressing GregJackP's concerns on the GAN subpage linked above as possible, as I am planning on renominating it sometime soon.
There's a debate underway at the above talk page concerning the breadth of concepts which should be covered in the article in question. However, despite the high-profile nature of the article, it has only so far managed to attract the opinions of three editors (the two original parties in disagreement and myself) and this seems like an appropriate place to secure further unbiased and informed editor opinions. Similar notices posted at WP:Wikiproject Biology and WP:Wikiproject Anatomy. Snow ( talk) 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The articles: Organic prepartum and postpartum psychoses, Psychiatric disorders of childbirth, Menstrual psychosis, Postpartum psychosis all were created or heavily edited by User:Son of Fraser and Joyce. Son of Fraser and Joyce contributions This editor was blocked in 2010 for copyright violations. I stumbled across them today when looking at content on Pre-eclampsia/Eclampsia and found some very outdated referenced content--a hundred years old--- in the article Psychiatric disorders of childbirth which I cleaned up. I removed large sections from several of these articles because the content was not well written and poorly sourced. But I didn't look specifically for copyright violations. In all honestly, some of them are so poorly written and sourced that they might need to go to Afd or be redirected. I promised myself that I would rewrite Eclampsia this week in honor of International Women's Day, so can't take on sorting this out until sometime next week (if no one else gets to it first...hint, hint that help would be nice.) :-) Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 04:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
User:West.andrew.g has recently calculated how much medical content we have in all languages of Wikipedia as of the end of 2013. I have put it together as a bookshelf. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Should this old abandoned Afc submision be deleted as a stale draft, or is this a notable topic that should be improved instead? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Can some regulars comment at Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol/Archives/2020#Marinol.2C_Cannabis.2C_and_Mortality? I'm worried about the amount of original research which is going on trying to debunk peer reviewed articles, and the use of blogs to counter peer reviewed sources (and also claims of conspiracies). I'm not medically trained and have no conclusions myself. Someone with experience in medical research to interpret the specific literature would be specifically helpful, Second Quantization ( talk) 10:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
PMID 21353301 (a 2011 meta-analysis) is one of the papers being discussed. There are claims that nobody has ever "scientifically proven" that cannabis can kill people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.
Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Dr. Azzam ( User:AminMDMA) and I were interviewed in video about Wikipedia and health.
The interviewer was Brian Lehrer.
See details about Dr. Azzam's class at Education_Program:University_of_California,_San_Francisco_(UCSF)/Expanding_WikiProject:_Medicine_(Fall_2013). Some of you may be aware that this class was highly covered in external media, including in The Atlantic and The New York Times.
Anyone wishing to become more involved in the education program could ask me anything or talk to any of the people at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard. It is my wish that more medical schools and health organizations contribute to Wikipedia. I also wish for the success of Dr. Azzam because he has put trust and his time in Wikipedia and our community far beyond what most others have. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tibial Nerve Stimulation. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
What are peoples thoughts on this? Supported by a small RCT and the pop press it received. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I figured it out. On Oct 8 there's a press release from U Florida which is republished by Futurity.org a non-profit (with many Univeristy "partners") that features the university discoveries. Someone posts the link to the Futurity article on Reddit and it goes viral within the site (2700 upvotes and hundereds of comments). Oct 10/11 (2 and 3 days later) it's picked up by CBS, NPR, FOX, USA Today and gets bigger after that. If you want to know what special interest story will be on the news tomorrow, check Reddit today. Ian Furst ( talk) 04:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
VMAT2 is the CNS vesicular transporter for not only the biogenic amines DA, NE, EPI, 5-HT, and HIS, but likely also for the trace amines TYR, PEA, and thyronamine (THYR) ... [Trace aminergic] neurons in mammalian CNS would be identifiable as neurons expressing VMAT2 for storage, and the biosynthetic enzyme aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC). ... AMPH release of DA from synapses requires both an action at VMAT2 to release DA to the cytoplasm and a concerted release of DA from the cytoplasm via "reverse transport" through DAT.
Despite the challenges in determining synaptic vesicle pH, the proton gradient across the vesicle membrane is of fundamental importance for its function. Exposure of isolated catecholamine vesicles to protonophores collapses the pH gradient and rapidly redistributes transmitter from inside to outside the vesicle. ... Amphetamine and its derivatives like methamphetamine are weak base compounds that are the only widely used class of drugs known to elicit transmitter release by a non-exocytic mechanism. As substrates for both DAT and VMAT, amphetamines can be taken up to the cytosol and then sequestered in vesicles, where they act to collapse the vesicular pH gradient.
Three important new aspects of TAs action have recently emerged: (a) inhibition of firing due to increased release of dopamine; (b) reduction of D2 and GABAB receptor-mediated inhibitory responses (excitatory effects due to disinhibition); and (c) a direct TA1 receptor-mediated activation of GIRK channels which produce cell membrane hyperpolarization.
• tonically activates inwardly rectifying K(+) channels, which reduces the basal firing frequency of dopamine (DA) neurons of the ventral tegmental area (VTA)
AMPH also increases intracellular calcium (Gnegy et al., 2004) that is associated with calmodulin/CamKII activation (Wei et al., 2007) and modulation and trafficking of the DAT (Fog et al., 2006; Sakrikar et al., 2012). ... For example, AMPH increases extracellular glutamate in various brain regions including the striatum, VTA and NAc (Del Arco et al., 1999; Kim et al., 1981; Mora and Porras, 1993; Xue et al., 1996), but it has not been established whether this change can be explained by increased synaptic release or by reduced clearance of glutamate. ... DHK-sensitive, EAAT2 uptake was not altered by AMPH (Figure 1A). The remaining glutamate transport in these midbrain cultures is likely mediated by EAAT3 and this component was significantly decreased by AMPH
AMPH and METH also stimulate DA efflux, which is thought to be a crucial element in their addictive properties [80], although the mechanisms do not appear to be identical for each drug [81]. These processes are PKCβ– and CaMK–dependent [72, 82], and PKCβ knock-out mice display decreased AMPH-induced efflux that correlates with reduced AMPH-induced locomotion [72].