![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Wikidata descriptions are short (about half a sentence, and omit ’the’ or ‘a’ from the beginning) and contain the kind of information we'd put on a disambiguation page. You want something that is simple, direct, accurate, and neutral, because these will often get translated and will probably not be updated much. I just did a few, and it’s much easier than I thought it would be. There's no complicated structured data stuff; you just write down what the thing is and save the page. Here are the steps:
These fields are used to direct editors to the right database records (so that articles about "cancer the crab" won't get improperly linked to "cancer the disease" in Wikidata), but they’re also used by other services to provide really basic information, e.g., to students in developing countries, who just need to know what ____ in their textbook is. Consequently, I think we should add this to the list of projects for the medical translation task force. It should be very easy work, especially if we keep the short descriptions simple.
I would really appreciate it if several of you would follow through my step-by-step directions and report back here about whether it worked and if you encountered any difficulties. If we can work out some good, simple directions, then we’ll post them some place useful. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't see the reference there Seppi333. Also just looking very quickly through the linked list ovarian cancer and bladder cancer have very different descriptions, one of which is arguably wrong. There might be a tendency to do them too quickly, and if so they aren't going to be of much use. If the statements aren't referenced they're of no use for Wikipedia. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 09:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I entirely grasp how Wikidata is supposed to work, or perhaps this browser is making a mess of things, but
with some trial and error, I discovered by examining that https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P604 is the Wikidata property for the MedlinePlus ID, where one finds https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/$1.htm described as the "formatter URL" for that property. Combining that formatter URL with the value 000889 for the MedlinePlus ID statement under https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q172341 (Ovarian cancer), I constructed https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000889.htm which turns out to be the MedlinePlus url for Ovarian cancer. Now, that would be sufficient as a reference, but there doesn't seem to be a way to indicate that it is the one ref used for the description in English. I suppose it would be reasonable to flag that in the edit comment if all else fails, but it seems there should be a cleaner way. It appears that the error there originates with the use of the Disease ontology entry DOID2394 "ovarian cancer: A female reproductive organ cancer that is located_in the ovary". That entry cites but does not correctly reflect the NCI dictionary of cancer terms entry for Ovarian cancer, which is more elaborate and nuanced. I'd hate to think each entry will need this much exploration to fix. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Can I just add that almost every article on Wikipedia now has a link in the left-hand 'Tools' section called "Wikidata item'. Clicking that link takes you to the Wikidata entry corresponding to the article. For the curious, it's a quick way to check on whether Wikidata has got the correct info on your favourite articles. If it hasn't, then please correct it! You can't break anything because its a wiki and you quickly pick up on how the organisation of the data works. Wikidata has over 13,000,000 data items that anyone can edit and making sure that its medical content is accurate is going to need a lot of eyes. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello once more, medical experts. This old AfC submission has plenty of references, but was never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Is this a notable topic, and if so are there changes that should be made before it's submitted?— Anne Delong ( talk) 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
it seems to be promotional in nature, and that (if I am not mistaken) seems to be evidenced by the history section editor unfortunately, articles of this nature are detrimental to the bases of Wikipedia, because as opposed to giving information they are simply "self promoting" and have little interested in educating the reader beyond "go buy my product" (that's not to say it has no redeemable qualities it does), however I believe the pros are outweighed by the cons-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Some questions have come up about Cucurbita and studies used to discuss apparent health benefits in alternative medicine brought up at the fringe theories noticeboard [1]. The topic could use some input from other med folks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Your comments on
Draft:SmartVest Airway Clearance System are welcomed. Use
Preferences →
Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{
afc comment|your comment here}}
directly in the draft. --
Sam Sailor
Talk!
20:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: I have removed the large section of original research from this draft article because it wasn't clear what Mr. Ebringer's role was, and I have added some book sources. On finding that this scientist is being heavily cited in books about alternative medicine, I am bringing the result here for a checkup by someone more medically knowledgeable. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This old draft about a medical journal is about to be deleted. Is this a notable journal, and should the page be kept and improved instead?— Anne Delong ( talk) 10:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
(sigh) Another one of these old drafts. Is this a notable topic? Are the references appropriate? To me it seems overly technical, but that could be fixed. Right now there's some coverage of this topic at Demethylase. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just dropping a line to let you know about a new course for which the instructor indicated they will be editing medical articles: Education Program:Miami University/Social Cognition (PSY 327) (Spring 2015). Thanks. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
hope you will understand me here:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Excoriation_disorder#classification
and here
/info/en/?search=Talk:Impulse_control_disorder#excoriation_disorder
and here for the classification:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/L98.1 "Other disorders of skin and subcutaneous tissue, not elsewhere classified"
or here
DSM-5 page 870
(i 'm french)
Vatadoshu (
talk)
14:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
These are (some of the) the sources Google.Com uses for its medical quick infobox results.
Google.co.uk does not provide this service.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 02:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC).
I stumbled upon the Mixing of stimulants and depressants ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article minutes ago via WP:STiki. Worth keeping? Flyer22 ( talk) 07:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah...I had initially WP:PROD'd the article, then marked it for WP:SPEEDY deletion once I noticed the creator was banned since I deleted all the content and he was the only contributor of article text. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be very good if someone from this project could have a look at this quite recently created article on a mysterious Sleeping illness in northern Kazakhstan. Right now it looks more like a news report then a encyclopaedic article. Thanks. P. S. Burton ( talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Are any of these FAs being maintained by a medical editor? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
To support medical claims here [2]. Further opinions requested. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I have been a Wikipedia editor for a while now. Recently I focus my efforts on adding images to the articles to help readers in understanding the concepts easier. Trust me, images help tremendously for readers to learn new subjects/concepts. Usually the articles I have edited are not related to medicines. Until recently after I visited the National Museum of Health and Medicine, I started touching some medical-related articles. To my surprise, the WP:MEDRS has a pretty high bar which I didn't realize. Thanks to seasoned editors ( Doc James and Jytdog) to help me out to understand the guideline. So I consider myself to be a newbie here in the medical content arena.
As I mentioned, I work with images for articles. My experience outside of the medical content is that, in general, the inclusion of images lacks inline citations. While the text content of an article has great reliable sources as inline citations, but most of the time, no citations for images. I think this is a big verifiability loophole of Wikipedia. With no verifiability, readers/editors cannot be certain that the image in question is an actual depiction of the subject or concept. Similar question for image caption as well. We can see some examples even in the medical articles such as CT scan images of diagnoses without citations, etc. The image use policy is strong on copyright concerns but weak on verifiability.
I would like to also share my experience working with images. I think it is much easier to find reliable sources for concepts or textual descriptions. It is much harder to find references with visual descriptions. Most of the time I have to resort to use primary sources (which are allowed in article content per general RS) because non of secondary sources would include a picture or "visually" describe things in such a way that we can use as an inline citation for an image. My believe is that if there is no secondary source out there, primary sources that can convey visual description is better than not having any citation at all. To me, images without citations can easily become WP:OR.
Now, let get back to the medical content. With such high bar on references (e.g. a review article on a science/medical journal indexed by PubMed), as we know, those articles mostly contain text, some graphs and tabular information. It is harder to find images that can be used as a reference from such articles. Now we are back to a decision on what should be done. Either we stand by the same high-bar for image citations or we just allow images to be included without citation at all. The former is one extreme in which we could deprive readers ability to understand hard concepts (biomedical is hard to most people) because we cannot include images without high-quality references in the same standard as MEDRS. On the other extreme, we let the loophole exists and hope that the editors include images with correct depictions of the subjects/concepts without a way to verify them. If you ask me, I would think somewhere between the two extremes is the best approach.
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Z22 ( talk) 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
There have been a lot of headlines recently about what is supposed to be the world's first successful penis transplant, which was performed last December in South Africa. For whatever reason, it is only just being reported on now. [4] [5] The weird thing is that there were media reports about "the world's first penis transplant" back in 2006 as well, in China. [6] The difference was that that penis was later rejected. [7] So should we describe the new South African transplant as the first successful one, or not? Everymorning talk 19:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've added the section "History" to the Phalloplasty#History article, can someone take a look at that, and consider expanding the section, and including it in the penis transplantation article as a pre-cursor technology? Thanks. -- Aronzak ( talk) 14:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This article was not previously listed under WP:MED, which I feel is inappropriate. Appears to have been promoted to GA status without reference to MEDRS and MEDMOS, but most of refs seem ok. Matthew Ferguson 57 ( talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Ping Seppi333 if interested. Matthew Ferguson 57 ( talk) 10:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Am trying to clarify the definitions of low, moderate, and high Wikipedia use. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
If I haven't overlooked it, the authors failed to indicate or to ask whether a specific language version of Wikipedia was considered. Since the students were asked at universities in Germany, Austria and Norway, they might (primarily) use the German, Norwegian or English Wikipedia. -- Leyo 17:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the deletion of CoD categories. Please share your opinions, either here or at the discussion page. Personally, I find these categories being of major importance from a medical perspective, as well as being defining to the individual. Any thoughts? — Gaute chat - email - sign 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Researchers have found that e-cigarettes produce negligible levels of toxins.
— Wavelength ( talk) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyone now if a better image exists? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia app (at least Android, maybe iPhone) has a feature that will let readers tweet an image and a chosen sentence out of articles. Here's an example: https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman/status/567871219044782080
I know that some of you are active on Twitter as a way of sharing medicine-related information, so if this appeals to you, then you might want to get the app and try it out. (Also: high quality, high-resolution lead images!) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
[9] this came out not too long ago, I deem it a good read, this individual was both a fighter and a victim (BTW it was also placed at Ebola virus epidemic in west africa talk)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Can some MEDRS regulars comment at Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#A_few_words_of_clarification. There's some edits to hide or downplay information about studies where all of the patients died. Second Quantization ( talk) 22:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:Maintained has been nominated for deletion here. In checking to see where it was used, I noticed a lot of biomedical articles on the list, so I'm posting this link here for broader input. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 22:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi All
I've just uploaded three hundred or so images from the UK Department for International Development to Commons here, many are related to medicine and there are a large amount of images specific to Ebola treatment. It would be really helpful if you could help categorise and use them in articles. I'm hoping wide usage on Wikipedia articles can encourage them to make more images available. Here are a few examples:
Thanks
Mrjohncummings ( talk) 17:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The study is Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics. The good news is that it's open access, the bad news is its conclusion: "...most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources." Everymorning talk 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It is another poor piece of research which unfortunately shows that the researchers do not know how to operate a Wiki and that peer review is no guarantee of high quality:
Valoem ( talk · contribs) is requesting to move this back to mainspace, so opinions are sought over at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. I'd argue that this has medical/psychological implications, though others' views may vary.. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Physicians know that recently vaccinated individuals can infect other individuals (both vaccinated and unvaccinated).
— Wavelength ( talk) 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
the media often will say one thing and then another, that is why any discussion is best based on something more substantial than the news-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This user is continueing to add primary sources from the 1980s [11] Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
just want to note that methadone is a mess and needs a good work over - it is bloated, has some inaccuracies, and sources are old. i've had this on my to-do list for a while and keep not getting to it. Jytdog ( talk) 12:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Please help review Draft:Self-adaptive wound dressing (2) - is it a notable topic yet? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
We need secondary sources that are at least pubmed indexed. Are any of the refs of that article? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought we might want to make friends with these people http://alsuntangled.com/
they are volunteer doctors who take on common questions about ALS (people tweet questions or post on their website) and they write review articles answering them, and then publish them. See: http://alsuntangled.com/completed.html Nice right? like us some. Jytdog ( talk) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
While creating a disambig page for double penis, I found that we currently have articles on both bifid penis and diphallia. Are these two names for the same condition, or two distinct conditions? If the former, they should be merged: if the latter, can someone please clarify the exact difference between the two conditions in both articles? Also, should the normal condition of bifid penis in some other species be split out from the article about the abnormal condition in humans, into its own article? -- The Anome ( talk) 11:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed the cause of death in many articles about people is stated to be cardiac arrest; often featured prominently in the article's infobox. However, cardiac arrest is the mechanism of death and not its cause. Should this technical point be corrected, or should we just let sleeping dogs lie and leave the colloquialisms in place? And if we wish to correct this, then how? Some problems I see are 1) discrepancies between what coroners from different nations are allowed to use to describe "cause of death", for instance some countries allow "old age" whereas others do not, 2) the unreliability of news sources to correctly use terms like "mechanism" vs. "manner" vs. "cause" of death, and 3) the lack of access to official coroner reports to find the actual cause of death to replace the current info in articles. Thoughts? TypingAway ( talk) 05:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
For medical content here. Wondering if others have opinions [14] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia is currently doing a good strong cleanup of that article, which has been subject to lots of school projects and crufty edits and has long been in need of love... hooray for Sandy! Jytdog ( talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick ( talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kauffman–White classification states it is a classification system only for Salmonella, but Proteus (bacterium) mentions it as a method to classify it as well. Anyone knowledgeable? Also the KW classification article could use some love, currently it has citations to the German Wikipedia. Possibly a little fringe, but I'm putting it out here before I have a stab axing the uncited content. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 15:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Concerning edits occurring. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:05:56.2C 22 March 2015 review of submission by MedResearchSF where the author of Draft:Bioelectronic Medicine needs help beyond the capabilities of (most) regular AFC reviewers. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Quality Of Sources. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Backstory is at Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Blood Libel And Racism. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. Just passing on a thing. We just had our very first request through the CRUK information nurse helpline to edit a Wikipedia page. It was from a survivor of a very rare leukaemia, who felt that the current page on the topic was unnecessarily negative and 'filled him with doom and gloom' (he's survived for 14 years - somewhat of an outlier given the overall statistics for the disease in general!). He didn't feel he was qualified to edit the page himself, hence the request to us. If anyone felt like having a look at the page with this in mind, that would be great - I'm not aware of any current refs that would substantially change its content but perhaps the tone could be a little less brutal in places to bear the newly-diagnosed in mind. Cheers, HenryScow ( talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"The clinical course is aggressive with short remissions and survival duration.") though the precise numbers could be updated. Exceptional good outcomes should not skew our article's content unless secondary sources express similar optimisim. -- Scray ( talk) 14:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Cloves syndrome has been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloves syndrome. Is there a notability guideline for diseases? Everymorning talk 23:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Suicide response#Requested move 19 March 2015. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
as you may have heard by now the UK became the first country to legalize this practice [18] , should the article section on "ethics", add a subsection dealing with its possible legalization in other countries? why or why not?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Article has already been deleted once, at the creator's request (after it was redirected IIRC). It's now back, and is a weird grab-bag of topics that made me think 'someone's posting their term paper as an article'. Creator's userpage suggests exactly that, except the account's being shared by five people. Could use some guidance from someone who's had experience with student editing. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Ayurveda that is relevant to this project. The question is essentially, should WP present the information from sources that the modern practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. Input there from knowledgeable editors with experience in articles on medical topics would be useful. Please note the editing restrictions on the article itself and on those on talk page discussion. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
this is an interesting topic, (however, be aware of the editing restrictions on the article and talk page).thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I recently submitted an article on bioelectronic medicine that was rejected. It was suggested that someone on this talk page could assist me through the process of improving it in order to get it approved. The draft is here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Bioelectronic_Medicine I've already removed the 'offending' reference noted by the first reviewer as well as made some other changes that I thought would both tighten the article and improve accuracy - but beyond that, I'm pretty stuck. Any advice/guidance/suggestions/specific editorial help is greatly appreciated. With despair and humility, MedResearchSF ( talk) 18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:Other metabolic pathology has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
18:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI for psychiatry editors: I've been finding dead links to
American Journal of Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Services articles and broken DOIs for Psychiatric Services articles. Looks like
American Psychiatric Publishing recently migrated their online publications from
Silverchair to
Atypon without providing redirects. Other resources at
psychiatryonline
credit›
20:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I've recently brought the Herd immunity article from start-class to B, and believe it could be GA. I'd like to know what could further be done to improve the article. Comments can be made here or on the article's talk page. ComfyKem ( talk) 02:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Inoculator is under discussion, see talk:Inoculator -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
[26] very recent article I deem this a good read, enjoy.thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The sugar industry has influenced the scientific agenda of the National Caries Program in the United States.
— Wavelength ( talk) 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The Vaginal tightening article is extremely poor. And, today, AbuseResearcher ( talk · contribs), who is clearly not a new Wikipedia editor, created the Vaginal laxity article and made a bunch of vagina-related redirects. The Vaginal laxity article does not use the ideal medical sources named at WP:MEDRS. I ask: What should be done with these two articles? We don't need both, and we have the Pelvic floor, Female genital prolapse and Vaginal weightlifting articles. Note that, looking at its sources, I also have concerns about the Vaginal weightlifting article; I addressed that article at this WikiProject last year (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 49#Vaginal weightlifting article), but got no replies.
I will alert WP:Anatomy to this discussion to keep the discussion centralized ( WP:TALKCENT). Flyer22 ( talk) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: AbuseResearcher is a WP:Sockpuppet of a WP:Banned editor, and the AbuseResearcher account is now indefinitely blocked; see here. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Mouse models of breast cancer metastasis (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Is this a viable topic for an article even?
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI
18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The source appears to be a dated study. For now I tagged the source. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
See the discussion about Rathfelder ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_30#Category:Hospitals_by_city where it is indicated many health and medicine categories have been blanked and/or emptied. -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 05:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Not fluent enough in English to drive the process, I posted here; please have a look. Regards -- BonifaceFR ( talk) 10:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi WikiMed,
Just announcing a new course working on medical topics: Education Program:DePaul University/Introduction to Psychology (Spring 2015). It's an intro class. A small intro class, but as we know from past experiences, introductory psych classes can prove challenging. So we requested some additional support from our partners at APS, who were quickly able to connect this course to a psychologist with experience teaching with Wikipedia. Details are being worked out, but that seems worth mentioning. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This content was introduced today to the Endocrine disruptor article:
A study published in 2015 estimates the health costs of EDC in the European Union to be approximately €157 billion per year. [1] [2]
References
- ^ http://www.eu-koordination.de/umweltnews/news/chemie/3071-edc-eu-kommissar-verteidigt-folgenabschaetzung
- ^ Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union, doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324
I removed this with edit note: "this is essentially a press release on publication of a WP:PRIMARY source. fails MEDRS", and Gandydancer restored it with edit note, "This source seems OK to me". I have not re-reverted.
Issues:
In my view this content is health related, since the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions ED chemicals cause, and then just did the math from there.
Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The source is ok. €157 billion is an economic cost. I don't think you can invoke MEDRS for removing a monetary figure in dollars (or euros). - A1candidate 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Per PMID 21054169, the danger posed by EDCs is a scientific fact. EDC advocates will no doubt disagree, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. - A1candidate 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
While PubMed has not as yet classified PMID 25742516 as a review, it would effectively appear to be a review:
For each exposure-outcome association, the process in each group began with the presentation of epidemiological and toxicological reviews of the literature ... Expert panelists were then asked to provide their opinions about the strength of the epidemiological and toxicological evidence for the exposure-outcome relationship and the nature of that relationship.
— Trasande et al., The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324
In other words, an expert panel reviewed the available reviews and used a weight-of-evidence approach to assign a probability of causation. So why isn't this considered a secondary source? Boghog ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it would appear that the underlying medical claims (EDCs cause illnesses) in this source are tertiary (review of reviews, MEDRS compliant) while the economic claims (these illnesses cost ... ) are primary (outside the scope of MEDRS). Boghog ( talk) 18:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
"During a 2-day workshop in April 2014, five expert panels identified conditions where the evidence is strongest for causation and developed ranges for fractions of disease burden that can be attributed to EDCs. Although accompanying manuscripts describe in greater detail the bases for their estimates of disease attribution and probability of causation, we present here an overview of the methods they applied as well as approaches applied to estimate disease burden and costs attributable to EDCs in the EU based upon those data inputs."
Expert panels achieved consensus for probable (20%) EDC causation for IQ loss and associated intellectual disability, autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, childhood obesity, adult obesity, adult diabetes, cryptorchidism, male infertility, and mortality associated with reduced T. Accounting for probability of causation and using the midpoint of each range for probability of causation, Monte Carlo simulations produced a median cost of €157 billion (1.23% of EU gross domestic product) annually across 1000 simulations. Notably, using the lowest end of the probability range for each relationship in the Monte Carlo simulations produced a median range of €119 billion that differed modestly from base case probability inputs.
not to use your own words...oz, while all content should be sourced to 2ndary sources per WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and RS, only some content in health-related articles is specfically subject to MEDRS's call for secondary sources. Content about the cost of a drug, for example, doesn't need reviews or statements by major bodies under MEDRS (it should anyway per OR/VERIFY/RS, but not per MEDRS per se). The reason I think this content is subject to MEDRS's secondary sources guidance, is that the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions are caused by EDs in order to calculate costs - to me that is very much about health and is highly controversial. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC) ...but I still believe your judgement is correct, you rightfully say you feel in this matter the authors made judgements and that is why you are looking for clarity, your right...I agree with you (again)...and I think others should give opinions as well-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with JytDog ....There is a catalogue of criteria for endocrine disruptors (EDC) within the European Union yet. On Monday, health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis had to justify this delay before the European Parliament. The Commission would have to suggest already on 13 December 2013 the catalogue of criteria for the hormonally active chemicals. So far it works but on the impact assessment of EDC. Deputies criticise the postponement and emphasize the health and economic need for fast regulation. Andriukaitis emphasized the importance of assessment at the plenary session, to take into account all scientific information. The first phase of the research was completed, a consultation is finished. In the next step, an informational site published and initiated a second round of research. A new study by international researchers has once again put the health costs of EDC: close 157 billion euros per year. 155.8 billion more than a study of Scandinavian EU Member States commissioned end of 2014 revealed (EU news by the 25.11.2014) are. Investigated injuries were such restrictions of IQ and mental retardation with prenatal exposure to specific neurotoxic. These cause the highest costs. Meanwhile, Sweden has launched an initiative to accuse the European Commission before the European Court of Justice because it is not complied with their legal obligations to the regulation of EDC. The Council has joined in the initiative last month (EU-news from the 27.02.2015 [35]...is no good and therefore we need to work towards a MEDRS source per the reasons outlined above.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis how lovely to see you here. If you haven't, (you too WAID), I would urge you to read the Trasande paper - the layers of assumptions here are something. And they say: "The approach we have taken will potentially transform decision-making in environmental health by providing a new model for evaluating environmental health risks and permitting a complete assessment of the potential costs of failing to prevent chronic disease through the use of safer alternatives to EDCs." (emphasis added) (p8, near top of right column). This is not your run of the mill paper. Jytdog ( talk) 23:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Wikidata descriptions are short (about half a sentence, and omit ’the’ or ‘a’ from the beginning) and contain the kind of information we'd put on a disambiguation page. You want something that is simple, direct, accurate, and neutral, because these will often get translated and will probably not be updated much. I just did a few, and it’s much easier than I thought it would be. There's no complicated structured data stuff; you just write down what the thing is and save the page. Here are the steps:
These fields are used to direct editors to the right database records (so that articles about "cancer the crab" won't get improperly linked to "cancer the disease" in Wikidata), but they’re also used by other services to provide really basic information, e.g., to students in developing countries, who just need to know what ____ in their textbook is. Consequently, I think we should add this to the list of projects for the medical translation task force. It should be very easy work, especially if we keep the short descriptions simple.
I would really appreciate it if several of you would follow through my step-by-step directions and report back here about whether it worked and if you encountered any difficulties. If we can work out some good, simple directions, then we’ll post them some place useful. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't see the reference there Seppi333. Also just looking very quickly through the linked list ovarian cancer and bladder cancer have very different descriptions, one of which is arguably wrong. There might be a tendency to do them too quickly, and if so they aren't going to be of much use. If the statements aren't referenced they're of no use for Wikipedia. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 09:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I entirely grasp how Wikidata is supposed to work, or perhaps this browser is making a mess of things, but
with some trial and error, I discovered by examining that https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P604 is the Wikidata property for the MedlinePlus ID, where one finds https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/$1.htm described as the "formatter URL" for that property. Combining that formatter URL with the value 000889 for the MedlinePlus ID statement under https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q172341 (Ovarian cancer), I constructed https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000889.htm which turns out to be the MedlinePlus url for Ovarian cancer. Now, that would be sufficient as a reference, but there doesn't seem to be a way to indicate that it is the one ref used for the description in English. I suppose it would be reasonable to flag that in the edit comment if all else fails, but it seems there should be a cleaner way. It appears that the error there originates with the use of the Disease ontology entry DOID2394 "ovarian cancer: A female reproductive organ cancer that is located_in the ovary". That entry cites but does not correctly reflect the NCI dictionary of cancer terms entry for Ovarian cancer, which is more elaborate and nuanced. I'd hate to think each entry will need this much exploration to fix. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Can I just add that almost every article on Wikipedia now has a link in the left-hand 'Tools' section called "Wikidata item'. Clicking that link takes you to the Wikidata entry corresponding to the article. For the curious, it's a quick way to check on whether Wikidata has got the correct info on your favourite articles. If it hasn't, then please correct it! You can't break anything because its a wiki and you quickly pick up on how the organisation of the data works. Wikidata has over 13,000,000 data items that anyone can edit and making sure that its medical content is accurate is going to need a lot of eyes. -- RexxS ( talk) 01:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello once more, medical experts. This old AfC submission has plenty of references, but was never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Is this a notable topic, and if so are there changes that should be made before it's submitted?— Anne Delong ( talk) 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
it seems to be promotional in nature, and that (if I am not mistaken) seems to be evidenced by the history section editor unfortunately, articles of this nature are detrimental to the bases of Wikipedia, because as opposed to giving information they are simply "self promoting" and have little interested in educating the reader beyond "go buy my product" (that's not to say it has no redeemable qualities it does), however I believe the pros are outweighed by the cons-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Some questions have come up about Cucurbita and studies used to discuss apparent health benefits in alternative medicine brought up at the fringe theories noticeboard [1]. The topic could use some input from other med folks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Your comments on
Draft:SmartVest Airway Clearance System are welcomed. Use
Preferences →
Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{
afc comment|your comment here}}
directly in the draft. --
Sam Sailor
Talk!
20:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: I have removed the large section of original research from this draft article because it wasn't clear what Mr. Ebringer's role was, and I have added some book sources. On finding that this scientist is being heavily cited in books about alternative medicine, I am bringing the result here for a checkup by someone more medically knowledgeable. — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This old draft about a medical journal is about to be deleted. Is this a notable journal, and should the page be kept and improved instead?— Anne Delong ( talk) 10:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
(sigh) Another one of these old drafts. Is this a notable topic? Are the references appropriate? To me it seems overly technical, but that could be fixed. Right now there's some coverage of this topic at Demethylase. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just dropping a line to let you know about a new course for which the instructor indicated they will be editing medical articles: Education Program:Miami University/Social Cognition (PSY 327) (Spring 2015). Thanks. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
hope you will understand me here:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Excoriation_disorder#classification
and here
/info/en/?search=Talk:Impulse_control_disorder#excoriation_disorder
and here for the classification:
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/L98.1 "Other disorders of skin and subcutaneous tissue, not elsewhere classified"
or here
DSM-5 page 870
(i 'm french)
Vatadoshu (
talk)
14:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
These are (some of the) the sources Google.Com uses for its medical quick infobox results.
Google.co.uk does not provide this service.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 02:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC).
I stumbled upon the Mixing of stimulants and depressants ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article minutes ago via WP:STiki. Worth keeping? Flyer22 ( talk) 07:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah...I had initially WP:PROD'd the article, then marked it for WP:SPEEDY deletion once I noticed the creator was banned since I deleted all the content and he was the only contributor of article text. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be very good if someone from this project could have a look at this quite recently created article on a mysterious Sleeping illness in northern Kazakhstan. Right now it looks more like a news report then a encyclopaedic article. Thanks. P. S. Burton ( talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Are any of these FAs being maintained by a medical editor? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
To support medical claims here [2]. Further opinions requested. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I have been a Wikipedia editor for a while now. Recently I focus my efforts on adding images to the articles to help readers in understanding the concepts easier. Trust me, images help tremendously for readers to learn new subjects/concepts. Usually the articles I have edited are not related to medicines. Until recently after I visited the National Museum of Health and Medicine, I started touching some medical-related articles. To my surprise, the WP:MEDRS has a pretty high bar which I didn't realize. Thanks to seasoned editors ( Doc James and Jytdog) to help me out to understand the guideline. So I consider myself to be a newbie here in the medical content arena.
As I mentioned, I work with images for articles. My experience outside of the medical content is that, in general, the inclusion of images lacks inline citations. While the text content of an article has great reliable sources as inline citations, but most of the time, no citations for images. I think this is a big verifiability loophole of Wikipedia. With no verifiability, readers/editors cannot be certain that the image in question is an actual depiction of the subject or concept. Similar question for image caption as well. We can see some examples even in the medical articles such as CT scan images of diagnoses without citations, etc. The image use policy is strong on copyright concerns but weak on verifiability.
I would like to also share my experience working with images. I think it is much easier to find reliable sources for concepts or textual descriptions. It is much harder to find references with visual descriptions. Most of the time I have to resort to use primary sources (which are allowed in article content per general RS) because non of secondary sources would include a picture or "visually" describe things in such a way that we can use as an inline citation for an image. My believe is that if there is no secondary source out there, primary sources that can convey visual description is better than not having any citation at all. To me, images without citations can easily become WP:OR.
Now, let get back to the medical content. With such high bar on references (e.g. a review article on a science/medical journal indexed by PubMed), as we know, those articles mostly contain text, some graphs and tabular information. It is harder to find images that can be used as a reference from such articles. Now we are back to a decision on what should be done. Either we stand by the same high-bar for image citations or we just allow images to be included without citation at all. The former is one extreme in which we could deprive readers ability to understand hard concepts (biomedical is hard to most people) because we cannot include images without high-quality references in the same standard as MEDRS. On the other extreme, we let the loophole exists and hope that the editors include images with correct depictions of the subjects/concepts without a way to verify them. If you ask me, I would think somewhere between the two extremes is the best approach.
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Z22 ( talk) 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
There have been a lot of headlines recently about what is supposed to be the world's first successful penis transplant, which was performed last December in South Africa. For whatever reason, it is only just being reported on now. [4] [5] The weird thing is that there were media reports about "the world's first penis transplant" back in 2006 as well, in China. [6] The difference was that that penis was later rejected. [7] So should we describe the new South African transplant as the first successful one, or not? Everymorning talk 19:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've added the section "History" to the Phalloplasty#History article, can someone take a look at that, and consider expanding the section, and including it in the penis transplantation article as a pre-cursor technology? Thanks. -- Aronzak ( talk) 14:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This article was not previously listed under WP:MED, which I feel is inappropriate. Appears to have been promoted to GA status without reference to MEDRS and MEDMOS, but most of refs seem ok. Matthew Ferguson 57 ( talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Ping Seppi333 if interested. Matthew Ferguson 57 ( talk) 10:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Am trying to clarify the definitions of low, moderate, and high Wikipedia use. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
If I haven't overlooked it, the authors failed to indicate or to ask whether a specific language version of Wikipedia was considered. Since the students were asked at universities in Germany, Austria and Norway, they might (primarily) use the German, Norwegian or English Wikipedia. -- Leyo 17:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the deletion of CoD categories. Please share your opinions, either here or at the discussion page. Personally, I find these categories being of major importance from a medical perspective, as well as being defining to the individual. Any thoughts? — Gaute chat - email - sign 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Researchers have found that e-cigarettes produce negligible levels of toxins.
— Wavelength ( talk) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyone now if a better image exists? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia app (at least Android, maybe iPhone) has a feature that will let readers tweet an image and a chosen sentence out of articles. Here's an example: https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman/status/567871219044782080
I know that some of you are active on Twitter as a way of sharing medicine-related information, so if this appeals to you, then you might want to get the app and try it out. (Also: high quality, high-resolution lead images!) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
[9] this came out not too long ago, I deem it a good read, this individual was both a fighter and a victim (BTW it was also placed at Ebola virus epidemic in west africa talk)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Can some MEDRS regulars comment at Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#A_few_words_of_clarification. There's some edits to hide or downplay information about studies where all of the patients died. Second Quantization ( talk) 22:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:Maintained has been nominated for deletion here. In checking to see where it was used, I noticed a lot of biomedical articles on the list, so I'm posting this link here for broader input. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 22:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi All
I've just uploaded three hundred or so images from the UK Department for International Development to Commons here, many are related to medicine and there are a large amount of images specific to Ebola treatment. It would be really helpful if you could help categorise and use them in articles. I'm hoping wide usage on Wikipedia articles can encourage them to make more images available. Here are a few examples:
Thanks
Mrjohncummings ( talk) 17:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The study is Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics. The good news is that it's open access, the bad news is its conclusion: "...most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources." Everymorning talk 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It is another poor piece of research which unfortunately shows that the researchers do not know how to operate a Wiki and that peer review is no guarantee of high quality:
Valoem ( talk · contribs) is requesting to move this back to mainspace, so opinions are sought over at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. I'd argue that this has medical/psychological implications, though others' views may vary.. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Physicians know that recently vaccinated individuals can infect other individuals (both vaccinated and unvaccinated).
— Wavelength ( talk) 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
the media often will say one thing and then another, that is why any discussion is best based on something more substantial than the news-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This user is continueing to add primary sources from the 1980s [11] Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
just want to note that methadone is a mess and needs a good work over - it is bloated, has some inaccuracies, and sources are old. i've had this on my to-do list for a while and keep not getting to it. Jytdog ( talk) 12:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Please help review Draft:Self-adaptive wound dressing (2) - is it a notable topic yet? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
We need secondary sources that are at least pubmed indexed. Are any of the refs of that article? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought we might want to make friends with these people http://alsuntangled.com/
they are volunteer doctors who take on common questions about ALS (people tweet questions or post on their website) and they write review articles answering them, and then publish them. See: http://alsuntangled.com/completed.html Nice right? like us some. Jytdog ( talk) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
While creating a disambig page for double penis, I found that we currently have articles on both bifid penis and diphallia. Are these two names for the same condition, or two distinct conditions? If the former, they should be merged: if the latter, can someone please clarify the exact difference between the two conditions in both articles? Also, should the normal condition of bifid penis in some other species be split out from the article about the abnormal condition in humans, into its own article? -- The Anome ( talk) 11:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I have noticed the cause of death in many articles about people is stated to be cardiac arrest; often featured prominently in the article's infobox. However, cardiac arrest is the mechanism of death and not its cause. Should this technical point be corrected, or should we just let sleeping dogs lie and leave the colloquialisms in place? And if we wish to correct this, then how? Some problems I see are 1) discrepancies between what coroners from different nations are allowed to use to describe "cause of death", for instance some countries allow "old age" whereas others do not, 2) the unreliability of news sources to correctly use terms like "mechanism" vs. "manner" vs. "cause" of death, and 3) the lack of access to official coroner reports to find the actual cause of death to replace the current info in articles. Thoughts? TypingAway ( talk) 05:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
For medical content here. Wondering if others have opinions [14] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia is currently doing a good strong cleanup of that article, which has been subject to lots of school projects and crufty edits and has long been in need of love... hooray for Sandy! Jytdog ( talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick ( talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Kauffman–White classification states it is a classification system only for Salmonella, but Proteus (bacterium) mentions it as a method to classify it as well. Anyone knowledgeable? Also the KW classification article could use some love, currently it has citations to the German Wikipedia. Possibly a little fringe, but I'm putting it out here before I have a stab axing the uncited content. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 15:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Concerning edits occurring. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:05:56.2C 22 March 2015 review of submission by MedResearchSF where the author of Draft:Bioelectronic Medicine needs help beyond the capabilities of (most) regular AFC reviewers. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Quality Of Sources. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Backstory is at Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Blood Libel And Racism. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. Just passing on a thing. We just had our very first request through the CRUK information nurse helpline to edit a Wikipedia page. It was from a survivor of a very rare leukaemia, who felt that the current page on the topic was unnecessarily negative and 'filled him with doom and gloom' (he's survived for 14 years - somewhat of an outlier given the overall statistics for the disease in general!). He didn't feel he was qualified to edit the page himself, hence the request to us. If anyone felt like having a look at the page with this in mind, that would be great - I'm not aware of any current refs that would substantially change its content but perhaps the tone could be a little less brutal in places to bear the newly-diagnosed in mind. Cheers, HenryScow ( talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"The clinical course is aggressive with short remissions and survival duration.") though the precise numbers could be updated. Exceptional good outcomes should not skew our article's content unless secondary sources express similar optimisim. -- Scray ( talk) 14:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Cloves syndrome has been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloves syndrome. Is there a notability guideline for diseases? Everymorning talk 23:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Suicide response#Requested move 19 March 2015. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
as you may have heard by now the UK became the first country to legalize this practice [18] , should the article section on "ethics", add a subsection dealing with its possible legalization in other countries? why or why not?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Article has already been deleted once, at the creator's request (after it was redirected IIRC). It's now back, and is a weird grab-bag of topics that made me think 'someone's posting their term paper as an article'. Creator's userpage suggests exactly that, except the account's being shared by five people. Could use some guidance from someone who's had experience with student editing. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Ayurveda that is relevant to this project. The question is essentially, should WP present the information from sources that the modern practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. Input there from knowledgeable editors with experience in articles on medical topics would be useful. Please note the editing restrictions on the article itself and on those on talk page discussion. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
this is an interesting topic, (however, be aware of the editing restrictions on the article and talk page).thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I recently submitted an article on bioelectronic medicine that was rejected. It was suggested that someone on this talk page could assist me through the process of improving it in order to get it approved. The draft is here: /info/en/?search=Draft:Bioelectronic_Medicine I've already removed the 'offending' reference noted by the first reviewer as well as made some other changes that I thought would both tighten the article and improve accuracy - but beyond that, I'm pretty stuck. Any advice/guidance/suggestions/specific editorial help is greatly appreciated. With despair and humility, MedResearchSF ( talk) 18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:Other metabolic pathology has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
ἀνυπόδητος (
talk)
18:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI for psychiatry editors: I've been finding dead links to
American Journal of Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Services articles and broken DOIs for Psychiatric Services articles. Looks like
American Psychiatric Publishing recently migrated their online publications from
Silverchair to
Atypon without providing redirects. Other resources at
psychiatryonline
credit›
20:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I've recently brought the Herd immunity article from start-class to B, and believe it could be GA. I'd like to know what could further be done to improve the article. Comments can be made here or on the article's talk page. ComfyKem ( talk) 02:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Inoculator is under discussion, see talk:Inoculator -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
[26] very recent article I deem this a good read, enjoy.thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The sugar industry has influenced the scientific agenda of the National Caries Program in the United States.
— Wavelength ( talk) 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The Vaginal tightening article is extremely poor. And, today, AbuseResearcher ( talk · contribs), who is clearly not a new Wikipedia editor, created the Vaginal laxity article and made a bunch of vagina-related redirects. The Vaginal laxity article does not use the ideal medical sources named at WP:MEDRS. I ask: What should be done with these two articles? We don't need both, and we have the Pelvic floor, Female genital prolapse and Vaginal weightlifting articles. Note that, looking at its sources, I also have concerns about the Vaginal weightlifting article; I addressed that article at this WikiProject last year (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 49#Vaginal weightlifting article), but got no replies.
I will alert WP:Anatomy to this discussion to keep the discussion centralized ( WP:TALKCENT). Flyer22 ( talk) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: AbuseResearcher is a WP:Sockpuppet of a WP:Banned editor, and the AbuseResearcher account is now indefinitely blocked; see here. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Mouse models of breast cancer metastasis (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Is this a viable topic for an article even?
Alexbrn
talk|
contribs|
COI
18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The source appears to be a dated study. For now I tagged the source. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
See the discussion about Rathfelder ( talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_30#Category:Hospitals_by_city where it is indicated many health and medicine categories have been blanked and/or emptied. -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 05:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Not fluent enough in English to drive the process, I posted here; please have a look. Regards -- BonifaceFR ( talk) 10:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi WikiMed,
Just announcing a new course working on medical topics: Education Program:DePaul University/Introduction to Psychology (Spring 2015). It's an intro class. A small intro class, but as we know from past experiences, introductory psych classes can prove challenging. So we requested some additional support from our partners at APS, who were quickly able to connect this course to a psychologist with experience teaching with Wikipedia. Details are being worked out, but that seems worth mentioning. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This content was introduced today to the Endocrine disruptor article:
A study published in 2015 estimates the health costs of EDC in the European Union to be approximately €157 billion per year. [1] [2]
References
- ^ http://www.eu-koordination.de/umweltnews/news/chemie/3071-edc-eu-kommissar-verteidigt-folgenabschaetzung
- ^ Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union, doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324
I removed this with edit note: "this is essentially a press release on publication of a WP:PRIMARY source. fails MEDRS", and Gandydancer restored it with edit note, "This source seems OK to me". I have not re-reverted.
Issues:
In my view this content is health related, since the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions ED chemicals cause, and then just did the math from there.
Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The source is ok. €157 billion is an economic cost. I don't think you can invoke MEDRS for removing a monetary figure in dollars (or euros). - A1candidate 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Per PMID 21054169, the danger posed by EDCs is a scientific fact. EDC advocates will no doubt disagree, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. - A1candidate 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
While PubMed has not as yet classified PMID 25742516 as a review, it would effectively appear to be a review:
For each exposure-outcome association, the process in each group began with the presentation of epidemiological and toxicological reviews of the literature ... Expert panelists were then asked to provide their opinions about the strength of the epidemiological and toxicological evidence for the exposure-outcome relationship and the nature of that relationship.
— Trasande et al., The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324
In other words, an expert panel reviewed the available reviews and used a weight-of-evidence approach to assign a probability of causation. So why isn't this considered a secondary source? Boghog ( talk) 16:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it would appear that the underlying medical claims (EDCs cause illnesses) in this source are tertiary (review of reviews, MEDRS compliant) while the economic claims (these illnesses cost ... ) are primary (outside the scope of MEDRS). Boghog ( talk) 18:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
"During a 2-day workshop in April 2014, five expert panels identified conditions where the evidence is strongest for causation and developed ranges for fractions of disease burden that can be attributed to EDCs. Although accompanying manuscripts describe in greater detail the bases for their estimates of disease attribution and probability of causation, we present here an overview of the methods they applied as well as approaches applied to estimate disease burden and costs attributable to EDCs in the EU based upon those data inputs."
Expert panels achieved consensus for probable (20%) EDC causation for IQ loss and associated intellectual disability, autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, childhood obesity, adult obesity, adult diabetes, cryptorchidism, male infertility, and mortality associated with reduced T. Accounting for probability of causation and using the midpoint of each range for probability of causation, Monte Carlo simulations produced a median cost of €157 billion (1.23% of EU gross domestic product) annually across 1000 simulations. Notably, using the lowest end of the probability range for each relationship in the Monte Carlo simulations produced a median range of €119 billion that differed modestly from base case probability inputs.
not to use your own words...oz, while all content should be sourced to 2ndary sources per WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and RS, only some content in health-related articles is specfically subject to MEDRS's call for secondary sources. Content about the cost of a drug, for example, doesn't need reviews or statements by major bodies under MEDRS (it should anyway per OR/VERIFY/RS, but not per MEDRS per se). The reason I think this content is subject to MEDRS's secondary sources guidance, is that the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions are caused by EDs in order to calculate costs - to me that is very much about health and is highly controversial. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC) ...but I still believe your judgement is correct, you rightfully say you feel in this matter the authors made judgements and that is why you are looking for clarity, your right...I agree with you (again)...and I think others should give opinions as well-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with JytDog ....There is a catalogue of criteria for endocrine disruptors (EDC) within the European Union yet. On Monday, health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis had to justify this delay before the European Parliament. The Commission would have to suggest already on 13 December 2013 the catalogue of criteria for the hormonally active chemicals. So far it works but on the impact assessment of EDC. Deputies criticise the postponement and emphasize the health and economic need for fast regulation. Andriukaitis emphasized the importance of assessment at the plenary session, to take into account all scientific information. The first phase of the research was completed, a consultation is finished. In the next step, an informational site published and initiated a second round of research. A new study by international researchers has once again put the health costs of EDC: close 157 billion euros per year. 155.8 billion more than a study of Scandinavian EU Member States commissioned end of 2014 revealed (EU news by the 25.11.2014) are. Investigated injuries were such restrictions of IQ and mental retardation with prenatal exposure to specific neurotoxic. These cause the highest costs. Meanwhile, Sweden has launched an initiative to accuse the European Commission before the European Court of Justice because it is not complied with their legal obligations to the regulation of EDC. The Council has joined in the initiative last month (EU-news from the 27.02.2015 [35]...is no good and therefore we need to work towards a MEDRS source per the reasons outlined above.-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis how lovely to see you here. If you haven't, (you too WAID), I would urge you to read the Trasande paper - the layers of assumptions here are something. And they say: "The approach we have taken will potentially transform decision-making in environmental health by providing a new model for evaluating environmental health risks and permitting a complete assessment of the potential costs of failing to prevent chronic disease through the use of safer alternatives to EDCs." (emphasis added) (p8, near top of right column). This is not your run of the mill paper. Jytdog ( talk) 23:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)