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 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
@ Boghog:, @ Jfdwolff:, @ MastCell:, @ Graham Beards:
I'm here with a plea, wearing two different hats-- medical editor, as well as former Featured article candidates (FAC) delegate and active Featured article review (FAR) participant, who resigned from FAC to resume medical editing.
The FAR team is working now on developing the next phase of review of older Featured articles. As we have begun to process through a sandbox listing of older FAs, I am consistently finding citation issues in the medical featured articles (FAs).
Some history: User:Diberri created the citation template filling tool that is now maintained by Boghog. It was for many years used by almost all medical editors, to the extent that it became the "house style" for most medical content. It uses a style that mimics author name formatting in PubMed, and avoids lots of template clutter with one author parameter; it also avoids clunky punctuation used by some other citation styles. It also avoided lengthy citations in our densely-cited medical articles by listing all authors if there were five or less, while truncating the authors to the first three with an et al when there were six or more authors. I just cleaned up Alzheimer's disease, so an (almost) clean sample can be seen there.
On any article, we should avoid altering citation style, per WP:CITEVAR. But with Featured articles, a consistent citation style is a requirement for FA status; when adding or updating citations, the established style must be maintained.
As I'm processing through the medical FAs, I'm finding that almost all of them used the Diberri format, but they have deteriorated over the years into a mess of citation styles-- some of them now having five or six different styles of citation! Some of this is because editors aren't aware they need to maintain consistency, and some is because there is apparently a tool in the edit window that uses some other style than we have always used. And some of it may be because Boghog made subtle changes to the Diberri tool; I'm not sure I follow all of that.
Could we please be aware of what the Diberri style is, and take care to maintain a consistent citation style in our medical Featured articles? I don't believe (not sure) that a consistent style is a requirement for Good articles, as it is for FA, but it makes sense to use one style on medical content, particularly since we historically had a house style, and we have a tool that generates it.
As we get further along on processing through old FAs, I will separately bring in WP:MED for whichever medical FAs appear to need updates other than in this area of citation consistency. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that we have the following competing priorities:
{{
vcite2 journal}} was designed to be both compact (addresses priority #1) and generate clean metadata (priority #2). The reason that I modified the
Template Filling Tool to generate {{
vcite2 journal}} instead of {{
cite journal}} is (1) as a deterrence to bots that try to substitute |author=
with first1, last1, ... parameter bloat, (2) suppress citation error messages, and (3) generate clean metadata. Personally I think the value of citation metadata is grossly overrated, but some editors insist on it. I also changed the Template Filling Tool default to not use "et al." (i.e., include all authors) to prevent citation errors from being generated. My short term plan is to (1) add "et al." support to {{
vcite2 journal}} and then (2) change the Filling Tool default back to "et al.". Hopefully this will address the FA related issues. Longer term, if |vauthors=
support were added directly to {{
cite journal}} and
RefToolbar, this would also address priority #3. Then everyone should be happy. Note that I am really busy in real life and will try to implement some improvements mentioned above this weekend when I have more time.
Boghog (
talk) 19:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
support to the
Module:Citation/CS1 sandbox (see
discussion). |vauthors=
has also been extended to accept "et al" in the author list. In a few weeks when this goes live, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite book}}, etc. templates will all support |vauthors=
. I will then change the
Wikipedia template filling tool back to its previous defaults, except of course that the name of the author parameter will be |vauthors=
instead of |author=
. The only remaining issues are (1) convince the maintainers of
RefToolbar to add the option of outputting |vauthors=
instead of "first1, last1, ..." parameters and (2) convince the maintainer of Citation Bot not to add "first1, last1, ..." parameters to citations that contain |vauthors=
. Finally there will no longer be a need for {{
vcite2 journal}} since the same functionality will be found in the standard {{
cite journal}} template.The only way to insure that rendering of a citation will not change over time is to use non-templated citations.shhhhh ... one of us realized that almost ten years ago. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, if I'm reading everything above correctly, our citations will be in flux until a) something that Trappist did somewhere goes live, and b) Boghog adapts the filling tool. If I am understanding everything (not likely!!!) so far, the filling tool will be adjusted to:
Then, I still have the following questions:
On top of those issues, we have other WP:CITEVAR issues. For example, to answer LeadSongDog's query, because I have since, like, forever HATED these eternal alterations in the citation templates (they are at the whim of these developers, and just when the FA author gets their ducks all in a row, some metadata person changes everything and citations go to heck, which is where we are now), I will always defend the right of the main/first developers of any article to maintain their original style (CITEVAR) if they disagree with what the rest of us decide. I think that's all of my questions and confusion, but don't count on it :) Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
will be retained. Please note for all of this to work, it is essential that |vauthors=
and not |author=
be used. The format of the rendered citation and metadata are two completely different issues. Changes in one can be made that does not affect the other. The advantage of the |vauthors=
parameter is that it will render the authors in Vancouver style and generate clean metadata without the need for explicit "first1, last1, ..." parameters.
Boghog (
talk) 21:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)|author=
with {{
cite journal}}/|vauthors=
and replace {{
vcite2 journal}} with {{
cite journal}}.
Boghog (
talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)|vauthors=
parameter in the standard {{
cite journal}} template once the sandbox changes go live. We can also have a bot
|author=
with |vauthors=
and remove |display-authors=etal
if present and|vauthors=
.|vauthors=
instead of {{
vcite2 journal}}.
Boghog (
talk) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
, et al.
for the remaining vauthors. That is a job which really should be done by the template code, not the filler. Leaving it as an option is largely harmless, as editors will continue to make their own choices. Was there an agreement somewhere on reintroducing italics for et al.? I don't particularly care, but I thought the reverse was the case. As seen at
MOS:Abbreviations, et al. is treated as an English
loanword, so not italicized.
WP:MOSMED does show the italics when referring to the
ICMJE Uniform Requirements, but looking at
those requirements it is clear that they do not call for italics either. (I suppose that means a correction to MOSMED is called for, to bring WPMED in line with the rest of WP and the ICMJE.)
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)That's great, thank you, though the authors should still be input as
{{cite journal/new | vauthors = Choi J, Oh S, Lee D, Oh HJ, Park JY, Lee SB, Lim DS |display-authors=3 | title = Mst1-FoxO signaling protects Naïve T lymphocytes from cellular oxidative stress in mice | journal = PLoS ONE | volume = 4 | issue = 11 | pages = e8011 | year = 2009 | pmid = 19956688 | pmc = 2776980 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0008011 }} Which still renders as
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)LeadSongDog come howl! 04:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
supports "et al." in the author list and will produce clean, albeit truncated author metadata. Please keep in mind that the main justifications for the new |vauthors=
parameter is to reduce parameter bloat and the reduce the size of the imbedded citation. Having to add another parameter, namely |display-authors=
, partially defeats the purpose of |vauthors=
. I have
argued that if |vauthors=
is invoked, then |display-authors=
should automatically set to six (the
ICMJE recommendation and the current {{
vcite2 journal}} default).
Boghog (
talk) 08:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)This article was apparently created as part of a project at UT-Austin (see bottom of page). It certainly appears that it could use some TLC. Everymorning talk 02:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa, could you please not alter your comments after others have already responded to them? It is my understanding (perhaps incorrect) that Corenbot can only compare to web content-- it does not have the ability to check books or journal articles that are not on the web. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles like this should be kept as the epigenetic mechanisms of disease processes is a very notable area of emerging research, especially in the case of neuroepigenetics. I feel it prudent to note that articles on disease epigenetics are virtually no different than what I've written in
FOSB, which, while technically an article on a gene/protein, almost exclusively contains content that covers the transcriptional/epigenetic mechanisms of addiction; if I revised the lead, it could just as well be retitled "Transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms of addiction".
It's also worth noting that these articles are just as relevant to
WP:MCB +
WP:Genetics and their guidelines (e.g.,
MOS:MCB) as they are to WP:MED and
MOS:MED.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 00:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is completely outside my area of expertise or interest and needs eyes. It was always rather problematic, but is getting a lot of attention recently from a new editor and it's looking more and more like a "How-to" guide as well as containing blacklisted links as "sources" (added by previous editors). Voceditenore ( talk) 06:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Only directly regards new infectious diseases, but the reasoning here may be of some broader interest perhaps. 86.134.202.206 ( talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead section of the article Health effects of tobacco currently references this paper [3] in the NEJM. I am concerned that it does not meet MEDRS. The abstract says "We pooled data from five contemporary U.S. cohort studies..." so it might be a secondary source. Thoughts? Everymorning talk 15:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Has been submitted to Articles for Creation at Draft:AN2728. Notable? Acceptable in current form? The references include lots and lots of clinical trials, and the body text includes statements like "Therefore AN2728 overall is well tolerated and safe." Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 11:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
(note - section header was formerly " RFC - Does a Clinical Trial Qualify as a Primary Source" and i just changed it. This is not an RfC, but rather an informal effort to get community input, and the question reflected a garbled edit note Jytdog ( talk) 01:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)) )
This RFC specifically relates to a discussion @ Formerly 98: and I were having about a revert he made. My opinion is the underlying source is a secondary in nature, even the conclusions about the clinical trials because WP:MEDRS states clinical trials are primary sources. I'll allow him to respond to represent his own opinion or refer you to the commentary in his revert which says "While the overview of safety assessment is secondary research, the conclusion that "most men who would be prescribed finasteride were excluded from trials" is from a primary, single site research study and fails MEDRS". The text removed appears in the conclusion of the abstract for the meta-study. Any objective feedback is appreciated. Thanks. Doors22 ( talk) 10:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a formal RFC (I don't think either Doors or myself have every learned how to do that), but it would be helpful to have outside input over on the article Talk page.
The study in question is here. As I have understood it (Doors may have a different view), the study had two parts. They reviewed the historical trials of finasteride and evaluated whether the processes for collected adverse event data were adequate, and concluded that they were not. They also compared the trial eligibility criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria) to the characteristics of a group of men recently prescribed finasteride for hair loss at their local medical center (I think this is what they did, the protocol is not clearly explained). Based on the latter data they concluded that "most men prescribed finasteride for hair loss were from groups not represented in the trials".
I have argued that the meta analysis of the trials is secondary research, but the study comparing the people prescribed finasteride at the local medical center to the exclusion criteria is primary. As I undertand it, Doors feels the entire study is secondary. This is the issue we need help with. My detailed arguments, along with those of Doors, are on the article talk page here.
Doors and I have a long history of conflict, and we are trying to get off on a better footing, so any input would be real helpful. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 12:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
To assess generalizability, we evaluated eligibility for the 3 manufacturer-sponsored trials26,27,32 referenced in the Clinical Studies section of the full prescribing information for finasteride, 1 mg, using as our data source the Northwestern University Enterprise Data Warehouse, a clinical data repository of ambulatory and hospitalized patients, providing laboratory data and diagnosis codes from 1992 through 2013 and comprehensive electronic medical record data from January 2001 through September 2013. We applied a 1.25-mg dose threshold because tablet splitting of the 5-mg dose was widely used as a cost-saving measure. We identified all International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for the cohort of men prescribed finasteride, 1.25 mg/d or less, in the clinical data repository and identified 345 exclusionary ICD-9 codes based on the exclusion criteria for the 3 trials26,27,32 referenced in the full prescribing information for men younger than 42 years. Principal exclusion criteria included significant abnormalities on screening physical examination or laboratory evaluation.26,27
So, that part of their conclusions is original research reported in the Belknap paper. The Belknap paper also has sections performing a review of the clinical trial literature, but that part in particular is original research reported in that paper, and the Belnap paper is PRIMARY for that. (i believe that this is what Formerly was trying to communicate in his edit note, which i have found garbled nonsensish until now) The accompanying editorial (Moore PMID 25831198) is an editorial, not a review. This is indeed the kind of the thing that we wait for a review to integrate. Do folks here see that, or do you disagree? Please do weigh in. Thanks
I also want to say that I think that both Belknap and Moore make it clear that we don't have good data showing whether there are or are not long term effects (not correlation) in some small amount of men - both emphasize the difficulty of getting that kind of data, ever. They could be both used to make a statement like that. Jytdog ( talk) 01:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I found this interesting article: Generous, N.; Fairchild, G.; Deshpande, A.; Del Valle, S. Y.; Priedhorsky, R. (2014). "Forecasting diseases using Wikipedia". PLOS Computational Biology. 10 (11). Medicalxpress.com: e1003892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003892. PMC 4231164. PMID 25392913. Retrieved 2015-05-16. -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Wondering if others could comment here Talk:Alcoholism#Main_links Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
came across Sinecatechins today while doing something else and realized we had nothing on the drug class. Jytdog ( talk) 01:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
by the way, i am a bit stymied by what do with the relationship among Epigallocatechin gallate, green tea extract (which is horrible) and Sinecatechins... Jytdog ( talk) 17:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Nicely done! What interesting to me is that people measure antioxidant potential of these polyphenols and think more is better. But another way of saying that these compounds are antioxidants is to say they are easily oxidized, and the oxidation products they form are not necessarily more innocuous than the ones they prevent. Epigallocatechin is not only cytotoxic, our article lists it as a carcinogen. For all the articles in the literature discussing its enzyme inhibition properties at high micromolar concentrations, I'd guess that it's oxidation product is a good old fashioned DNA alkylator. The tea drinking countries of the world also have the highest rates of liver cancer, though HBV is an obvious confounder, Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Botanical drug was on the main page a few hours ago. See Wikipedia:Recent additions#15 May 2015 for the entry. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
some groovy fun (more neuroscience than medicine) but needs some work, as do the daughter articles Binaural beats and Monaural beats. poor Brainwave entrainment has been tagged for help since 2008. oy. Jytdog ( talk) 15:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This garbage was just installed at tic disorder; can anyone tell me what it is and what good it does our readers or anyone else? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
An authority control is a unique identifier that allows libraries throughout the world to identify a subject unambiguously. It is used by researchers and library catalogues to ensure that their searches are finding the precise topic required. To take an extreme example, if you have a look at the bottom of our article on Alexander Graham Bell, you'll see that there are around a dozen different identifiers for him, e.g. VIAF, LCCN, SUDOC, etc., many of which are language specific: LCCN (the Library of Congress Control Number) is English (American to be precise); SUDOC (Système universitaire de documentation) is French; NDL ( National Diet Library) is Japanese; and so on. It is unfortunate that Tic disorder only has the NDL identifier recorded on Wikidata so far, so all you see when following the link is Japanese. I'm sure it's helpful for any Japanese researchers or librarians who are browsing our article - which appears to be a little better developed than the corresponding article on the Japanese wiki. If anyone knows any English authority controls for Tic disorder, I'd gladly update Wikidata with them - or show you how to do that if preferred. Hope that helps. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that Template:Authority control is really intended (read tested) for people. For medical subjects use http://id.loc.gov/ (think http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85135241 ) or the (beta) http://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/ . Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I've made some extensive edits to the Low THC cannabis article that I suspect will be controversial. Input from other editors is highly welcome. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 23:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you please do me a favor? I unwatched that article because what you have done there-- tossing MEDRS out the window to write a promotional advocacy piece, which undermines MEDRS for ALL of our medical content heneceforth-- disgusts me more than anything I have ever seen in here. Would you please keep your discussion over there so I don't have to see it? Thank you, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Really, we need to clean our own house before we throw stones. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's seek to understand this.... Reporting that homeopaths use homeopathy to treat all kinds of diseases, and some chiropractors claim to use spinal manipulation to cure cancer, MS, heart disease, deafness, and allergies, is not "disinformation", it is reporting what they claim to do. That is our job. Documentation of nonsense is not promotion of nonsense. We must report that, without promoting it in Wikipedia's voice as if it's actually a scientifically proven option. (That's the balancing act in all our alternative medicine articles.) You will note that those articles, and the CW article, make it clear that such claims are unproven and reports of healings are anecdotes. There is plenty of content which makes that clear. More research is needed. That's what everyone says, and that's what we report. We do it because RS say so.
Instead of making these vague aspersions here, try getting very specific at the article, instead of forum shopping here. I want to see the exact words which could be misunderstood. When that has been done at the article, I have made changes to meet those concerns.
The one thing I won't do is strip the body of that Corvette (CW) so you can hijack its chassis for the "chassis museum" article ( Low THC cannabis) you want to write. Our Corvette (CW) would be gone, and it happens to have far more than enough independent notability to justify its existence as an article. Our notability policy won't disappear just to suit you in this case. I'm sticking by it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind keeping it over there? Much obliged, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I reverted some changes by this user as explained on the talk page of the article in question Talk:Traumatic_brain_injury#Reverted_new_additions_as and their user page. The issues revolve around very old references from the 1980s being used and language changes that do not make sense.
They have left some usual comments on my talk page that also do not make sense User_talk:Doc_James#Traumatic_brain_injury. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
References
There is some very strange stuff on your talk, Doc, which reminds me of another recent situation on another article. I see Jytdog is attempting dialogue on talk, but I am thinking this is something Beeblebrox might look in to. Clearly, the edits need to be removed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
They wrote this page
Community_integration And they refer to themselves and use a lot of sources of which they are an author. Appears to be the author of
[15]
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 01:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hailed as a pioneer in exploring the basic principles of stem cell [17] biology, Elaine Fuchs of Rockefeller University has been named the winner of the 2015 E.B. Wilson Medal,the highest scientific honor awarded by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). It will be presented at the ASCB's Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA, on December 15. [18]...-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
following content was added in this dif
Despite its history of use, there is no evidence that backboards significantly immobilize the spine, nor do they improve patient outcomes. Cervical spine immobilization has been shown to increase mortality in patients with penetrating trauma. [1]
References
- ^ "The Evidence Against Backboards". EMS World. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
Not sure that source complies with WP:MEDRS... Jytdog ( talk) 17:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Correlation between digit ratio and traits" of the article " Digit ratio", I think there is an error in interpretation of a scientific source. Or at least, confusion can be caused. In the table, there is an item "Increased rate of Autism Spectrum Disorders (when comparing digit ratio to general population)[52]" in the column "low digit ratio" (which is completely correct, no problem here), and an item "Increased rate of Asperger syndrome (when comparing digit ratio to person's father)[52]" is in the column "high digit ratio" (which is somewhat problematic).
The reason the second item is problematic is the following. The whole table is about traits, compared to general population. The item about Asperger's however, in the right column, refers to the expected digit ratio compared to the father's digit ratio (which is of little interest in a table about traits, and confusing as it might lead people to believe that Aspergers have a high digit ratio, while in reality they have a low digit ratio).
The confusion is even enlarged by the fact that nowhere in the table is mentioned that, compared to general population, Aspergers have lower digit ratio. The source [52], which is this article: " The 2nd to 4th digit ratio and autism, is very clear on this point: "Children with AS (...) had higher 2D:4D ratios than children with autism but lower ratios than population normative values."
I changed the article " Digit ratio" as follows:
(I am new to editing/talking on Wikipedia, so I apologize for any errors, mistakes or bad practices.)
-- Bartvanaudenhove ( talk) 07:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I am working on doing a small sample study of the quality of cardiology articles. I have a couple of cardiologist and "cardiologist-in-training" lined up for a blinded evaluation for a couple randomly selected of the higher rated articles (will properly be GA and B) compared to... and here I am bit of a lost. I need some sort of golden standard in English for the comparison.
Most of my textbooks are in Danish so my knowledge of English textbooks is limited. I am thinking of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. Is this a book known to most physicians educated in countries where English is the main language? Is it a book of high enough quality to be considered some sort of standard? Does anybody have a better suggestion? A think it would be best to avoid a pure cardiology textbook since there will be a different assumption of the readers knowledge and depth compared to what Wikipedia is written for.
All comments and suggestions are welcome and if somebody would like to look over the protocol when I get that far you are more than welcome. ...and sorry if somebody feels I went a bit off topic for this forum. Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 18:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
just reviewed and declined this. others may have different opinions. Jytdog ( talk) 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The smegma article seems to be pushing a POV and cherry-picking pro-smegma primary sources. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Some addition eyes on this would be appreciated, especially per the discussion on the Talk page regarding ER visits associated with Cannabis use and whether the US Department of Health and Human Services is a reliable source. Thanks. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 01:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98, a new review. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help)"Leaky heart valve" seems to be a layman term for a range of conditions.
I think in all cases when this term is used it refers to Regurgitation (circulation). That article is about a heart plumbing phenomena, and not any medical condition, and anyway that is a disambiguation article. I think the most common cause of this kind of regurgitation is Valvular heart disease.
I just made leaky heart valve a redirect to valvular heart disease. I do not have good sources because getting precision is difficult for layman terms. If anyone has a better idea, could someone change this redirect? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
have been on this article (as has TylerDunden8823), should "treatment table" section be replaced for a more condensed explanation of the four conditions stated?(give opinions here or at talk page) thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
An unsourced statement about sinus rinsing to keep nasal polyps from growing back after surgery arouses my suspicions. More importantly, it occurs to me that some here might quickly add some good treatment resources to help push out the bad. Wnt ( talk) 13:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you reckon Extrinsic pathway could use a disambiguation page? It's too vague a term in my opinion. Let me know your thoughts and ping me if possible. It came to my attention when reading Prothrombin time and noticing the wikilinks in the lede had nothing to do with coagulation. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Biologists can be quite cheeky. Yes, the sciences in general are quite underdeveloped, we're just needles in a haystack. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
POV fork? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not good at writing AFD rationale (or someone has to set up a merge discussion ?), so I'm at least flagging the primary sources for now (basically, it's an article pushing one primary source,
PMID
24715950. The
editor who let it out of AFC needs to become familiar with Wikipedia policies, and probably shouldn't be working at AFC. POV fork-- redirect to Morgellons.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 02:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
And lest the issue get lost among the rabble, there continues to be quite a mess at Morgellons, and the editor who created the (too long to type article name above) has turned the talk page into a bit of a quagmire. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Search Draft: space
Type a keyword and click on the button. Optionally, add "review waiting" to see only drafts under review, or "CSD G13" for only abandoned drafts. [[Draft:]] |
Chris Squire, the bass player in my favourite band, Yes, has just been announced as suffering from acute erythroid leukemia (AEL) and the news is beginning to get some mainstream media coverage. Unsurprisingly, hits to the AEL article have shot up. I've gone to the page and done a bit of work on it, but it's a rare condition so I haven't found any systematic reviews/guidelines/textbooks on AEL as WP:MEDRS prefers. Any help/suggestions appreciated. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I can take a look in DaVita Oncology when I get home tomorrow. Keilana| Parlez ici 17:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The "Contributors" link, at the top of articles like Achondrogenesis type 2, is not working (it's generating a code 301, "Permanently moved"). Would someone who knows what is behind this link (see Category:Articles with contributors link for more information) fix it? Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This needs a significant amount of attention, there are like a gajillion primary studies that don't seem to meet MEDRS, many of which are animal and/or in vitro studies. Everymorning talk 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
[30] ..I deem this a good read, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 09:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
did a few edits on this calcium channel blocker and Acral Lentiginous melanoma (if anyone would like to chip in please do). thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Could someone who speaks images better than I do look at this situation at Deep brain stimulation? The username who added it is the same as the author on the study, I don't know if the image is correctly licensed, and I don't know if we're OK using that primary source to cite the image caption (I suspect it's fine, but ... way technical for me). And, depending on that outcome, then the (new) editor needs to be approached about COI. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I have one complaint about the image: why did they make the red nucleus green? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
non-related to wikimed project--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 20:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC))
|
---|
|
This is at AFD, so I was wondering what other medical editors thought about whether brand names in general/this specific one are independently notable or if it should be redirected to paracetamol. Everymorning talk 14:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
When people search for a brand name of a medication they are most commonly looking for a discussion of the medication not of the brand itself.
The solution I propose is moving all notable brands to "Name of brand" (brand) and than having the brand name redirect to the generic. We then link from the generic article in the lead to "Name of brand" (brand). For none notable brands we simply redirect to the generic.
This allows reads to get the med info they need without it being duplicated. It allows those who truly care about brands to find this info and those who wish to write about them to do so. It also makes clear that brand articles are about the brand not the medication in question.
It decreases the prominence we give brands so that people are less inclined to carry out brand name spamming which I have been seeing a lot lately for Indian brand names. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I know there's not much appetite for yet another discussion on alternative medicine, but for those who want to help resolve this longstanding and seemingly never-ending dispute, your input over here is greatly appreciated. - A1candidate 00:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
(I've posted this at Jimmy's talk page but thought it might interest members here.)
We need a bigger sample to be certain, but it appears to be the case. I took a sample of 40 of our 30-odd thousand medical articles and checked where they rank in Google searches. We were first in 24 searches, second in 11, and third, fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth in the other five. User:Anthonyhcole/Google rank of WPMED pages. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
We also come first on virtually any google search for a chemical that is a dietary supplement, OTC drug, pharmaceutical, or illicit substance; this might simply be true for literally any compound as opposed to just pharmacological agents. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably worth just pointing this out: interlinking an article within wikipedia is literally the most significant factor in boosting the google search ranking for it; adding external links to other websites that are ahead of wikipedia in the search ranking will usually maintain that page's ranking ahead of the wikipedia article. External linking to another webpage which isn't ahead of wikipedia will usually put it on the first page of a google search simply because of how much weight the google search algo assigns to outgoing links from heavily interlinked wikipedia articles (e.g., I external linked to
[35] from FOSB and, as a result, it was boosted from, IIRC, a 2nd page entry to being the 2nd entry when
googling ΔFosB).
Their search algo is basically just a really big
linear system which assigns a webpage's search ranking based upon a weighted average of links to that page from other webpages, where the weighting of a particular incoming link is based mostly (or entirely, provided it didn't change since I took linear algebra in college
) upon the search ranking of the incoming link's webpage (its ranking is also based upon the weighted average of that page's incoming links). Or, in plain English, for a particular search phrase, every webpage's search rank is based upon the search rank of all other webpages that link to it.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 17:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There are some weird comments on Talk:Human papillomavirus and I think the commentator is trying to use sarcasm but I'm having trouble understanding exactly what they mean. If their concerns are valid, I have some more recent references to insert to replace the older ones that I found while working on Cervical cancer. Best Regards,
I suspect this article should be moved, perhaps to Epidemiology of metabolic syndrome. I'm also concerned that the Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism (cited several times in the article) does not meet MEDRS, given that it has no IF and is not indexed in MEDLINE. Everymorning talk 19:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The list List of microbiota species of the lower reproductive tract of women is listed on main page today. Yeah for Project Medicine! Best Regards,
These 3 articles are on a short chain fatty acid which is produced in the microbiome and affects neurological function (among basically everything else) by acting on epigenetic drug targets. It's also sold OTC (usually as 1 of the salts), so we need a drugbox for it.
Question is: which page should these be merged to? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:01, 22 May 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 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
@ Boghog:, @ Jfdwolff:, @ MastCell:, @ Graham Beards:
I'm here with a plea, wearing two different hats-- medical editor, as well as former Featured article candidates (FAC) delegate and active Featured article review (FAR) participant, who resigned from FAC to resume medical editing.
The FAR team is working now on developing the next phase of review of older Featured articles. As we have begun to process through a sandbox listing of older FAs, I am consistently finding citation issues in the medical featured articles (FAs).
Some history: User:Diberri created the citation template filling tool that is now maintained by Boghog. It was for many years used by almost all medical editors, to the extent that it became the "house style" for most medical content. It uses a style that mimics author name formatting in PubMed, and avoids lots of template clutter with one author parameter; it also avoids clunky punctuation used by some other citation styles. It also avoided lengthy citations in our densely-cited medical articles by listing all authors if there were five or less, while truncating the authors to the first three with an et al when there were six or more authors. I just cleaned up Alzheimer's disease, so an (almost) clean sample can be seen there.
On any article, we should avoid altering citation style, per WP:CITEVAR. But with Featured articles, a consistent citation style is a requirement for FA status; when adding or updating citations, the established style must be maintained.
As I'm processing through the medical FAs, I'm finding that almost all of them used the Diberri format, but they have deteriorated over the years into a mess of citation styles-- some of them now having five or six different styles of citation! Some of this is because editors aren't aware they need to maintain consistency, and some is because there is apparently a tool in the edit window that uses some other style than we have always used. And some of it may be because Boghog made subtle changes to the Diberri tool; I'm not sure I follow all of that.
Could we please be aware of what the Diberri style is, and take care to maintain a consistent citation style in our medical Featured articles? I don't believe (not sure) that a consistent style is a requirement for Good articles, as it is for FA, but it makes sense to use one style on medical content, particularly since we historically had a house style, and we have a tool that generates it.
As we get further along on processing through old FAs, I will separately bring in WP:MED for whichever medical FAs appear to need updates other than in this area of citation consistency. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that we have the following competing priorities:
{{
vcite2 journal}} was designed to be both compact (addresses priority #1) and generate clean metadata (priority #2). The reason that I modified the
Template Filling Tool to generate {{
vcite2 journal}} instead of {{
cite journal}} is (1) as a deterrence to bots that try to substitute |author=
with first1, last1, ... parameter bloat, (2) suppress citation error messages, and (3) generate clean metadata. Personally I think the value of citation metadata is grossly overrated, but some editors insist on it. I also changed the Template Filling Tool default to not use "et al." (i.e., include all authors) to prevent citation errors from being generated. My short term plan is to (1) add "et al." support to {{
vcite2 journal}} and then (2) change the Filling Tool default back to "et al.". Hopefully this will address the FA related issues. Longer term, if |vauthors=
support were added directly to {{
cite journal}} and
RefToolbar, this would also address priority #3. Then everyone should be happy. Note that I am really busy in real life and will try to implement some improvements mentioned above this weekend when I have more time.
Boghog (
talk) 19:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
support to the
Module:Citation/CS1 sandbox (see
discussion). |vauthors=
has also been extended to accept "et al" in the author list. In a few weeks when this goes live, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite book}}, etc. templates will all support |vauthors=
. I will then change the
Wikipedia template filling tool back to its previous defaults, except of course that the name of the author parameter will be |vauthors=
instead of |author=
. The only remaining issues are (1) convince the maintainers of
RefToolbar to add the option of outputting |vauthors=
instead of "first1, last1, ..." parameters and (2) convince the maintainer of Citation Bot not to add "first1, last1, ..." parameters to citations that contain |vauthors=
. Finally there will no longer be a need for {{
vcite2 journal}} since the same functionality will be found in the standard {{
cite journal}} template.The only way to insure that rendering of a citation will not change over time is to use non-templated citations.shhhhh ... one of us realized that almost ten years ago. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, if I'm reading everything above correctly, our citations will be in flux until a) something that Trappist did somewhere goes live, and b) Boghog adapts the filling tool. If I am understanding everything (not likely!!!) so far, the filling tool will be adjusted to:
Then, I still have the following questions:
On top of those issues, we have other WP:CITEVAR issues. For example, to answer LeadSongDog's query, because I have since, like, forever HATED these eternal alterations in the citation templates (they are at the whim of these developers, and just when the FA author gets their ducks all in a row, some metadata person changes everything and citations go to heck, which is where we are now), I will always defend the right of the main/first developers of any article to maintain their original style (CITEVAR) if they disagree with what the rest of us decide. I think that's all of my questions and confusion, but don't count on it :) Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
will be retained. Please note for all of this to work, it is essential that |vauthors=
and not |author=
be used. The format of the rendered citation and metadata are two completely different issues. Changes in one can be made that does not affect the other. The advantage of the |vauthors=
parameter is that it will render the authors in Vancouver style and generate clean metadata without the need for explicit "first1, last1, ..." parameters.
Boghog (
talk) 21:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)|author=
with {{
cite journal}}/|vauthors=
and replace {{
vcite2 journal}} with {{
cite journal}}.
Boghog (
talk) 21:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)|vauthors=
parameter in the standard {{
cite journal}} template once the sandbox changes go live. We can also have a bot
|author=
with |vauthors=
and remove |display-authors=etal
if present and|vauthors=
.|vauthors=
instead of {{
vcite2 journal}}.
Boghog (
talk) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
, et al.
for the remaining vauthors. That is a job which really should be done by the template code, not the filler. Leaving it as an option is largely harmless, as editors will continue to make their own choices. Was there an agreement somewhere on reintroducing italics for et al.? I don't particularly care, but I thought the reverse was the case. As seen at
MOS:Abbreviations, et al. is treated as an English
loanword, so not italicized.
WP:MOSMED does show the italics when referring to the
ICMJE Uniform Requirements, but looking at
those requirements it is clear that they do not call for italics either. (I suppose that means a correction to MOSMED is called for, to bring WPMED in line with the rest of WP and the ICMJE.)
LeadSongDog
come howl! 20:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)That's great, thank you, though the authors should still be input as
{{cite journal/new | vauthors = Choi J, Oh S, Lee D, Oh HJ, Park JY, Lee SB, Lim DS |display-authors=3 | title = Mst1-FoxO signaling protects Naïve T lymphocytes from cellular oxidative stress in mice | journal = PLoS ONE | volume = 4 | issue = 11 | pages = e8011 | year = 2009 | pmid = 19956688 | pmc = 2776980 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0008011 }} Which still renders as
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)LeadSongDog come howl! 04:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
supports "et al." in the author list and will produce clean, albeit truncated author metadata. Please keep in mind that the main justifications for the new |vauthors=
parameter is to reduce parameter bloat and the reduce the size of the imbedded citation. Having to add another parameter, namely |display-authors=
, partially defeats the purpose of |vauthors=
. I have
argued that if |vauthors=
is invoked, then |display-authors=
should automatically set to six (the
ICMJE recommendation and the current {{
vcite2 journal}} default).
Boghog (
talk) 08:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)This article was apparently created as part of a project at UT-Austin (see bottom of page). It certainly appears that it could use some TLC. Everymorning talk 02:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa, could you please not alter your comments after others have already responded to them? It is my understanding (perhaps incorrect) that Corenbot can only compare to web content-- it does not have the ability to check books or journal articles that are not on the web. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Articles like this should be kept as the epigenetic mechanisms of disease processes is a very notable area of emerging research, especially in the case of neuroepigenetics. I feel it prudent to note that articles on disease epigenetics are virtually no different than what I've written in
FOSB, which, while technically an article on a gene/protein, almost exclusively contains content that covers the transcriptional/epigenetic mechanisms of addiction; if I revised the lead, it could just as well be retitled "Transcriptional and epigenetic mechanisms of addiction".
It's also worth noting that these articles are just as relevant to
WP:MCB +
WP:Genetics and their guidelines (e.g.,
MOS:MCB) as they are to WP:MED and
MOS:MED.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 00:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is completely outside my area of expertise or interest and needs eyes. It was always rather problematic, but is getting a lot of attention recently from a new editor and it's looking more and more like a "How-to" guide as well as containing blacklisted links as "sources" (added by previous editors). Voceditenore ( talk) 06:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Only directly regards new infectious diseases, but the reasoning here may be of some broader interest perhaps. 86.134.202.206 ( talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead section of the article Health effects of tobacco currently references this paper [3] in the NEJM. I am concerned that it does not meet MEDRS. The abstract says "We pooled data from five contemporary U.S. cohort studies..." so it might be a secondary source. Thoughts? Everymorning talk 15:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Has been submitted to Articles for Creation at Draft:AN2728. Notable? Acceptable in current form? The references include lots and lots of clinical trials, and the body text includes statements like "Therefore AN2728 overall is well tolerated and safe." Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 11:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
(note - section header was formerly " RFC - Does a Clinical Trial Qualify as a Primary Source" and i just changed it. This is not an RfC, but rather an informal effort to get community input, and the question reflected a garbled edit note Jytdog ( talk) 01:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)) )
This RFC specifically relates to a discussion @ Formerly 98: and I were having about a revert he made. My opinion is the underlying source is a secondary in nature, even the conclusions about the clinical trials because WP:MEDRS states clinical trials are primary sources. I'll allow him to respond to represent his own opinion or refer you to the commentary in his revert which says "While the overview of safety assessment is secondary research, the conclusion that "most men who would be prescribed finasteride were excluded from trials" is from a primary, single site research study and fails MEDRS". The text removed appears in the conclusion of the abstract for the meta-study. Any objective feedback is appreciated. Thanks. Doors22 ( talk) 10:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a formal RFC (I don't think either Doors or myself have every learned how to do that), but it would be helpful to have outside input over on the article Talk page.
The study in question is here. As I have understood it (Doors may have a different view), the study had two parts. They reviewed the historical trials of finasteride and evaluated whether the processes for collected adverse event data were adequate, and concluded that they were not. They also compared the trial eligibility criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria) to the characteristics of a group of men recently prescribed finasteride for hair loss at their local medical center (I think this is what they did, the protocol is not clearly explained). Based on the latter data they concluded that "most men prescribed finasteride for hair loss were from groups not represented in the trials".
I have argued that the meta analysis of the trials is secondary research, but the study comparing the people prescribed finasteride at the local medical center to the exclusion criteria is primary. As I undertand it, Doors feels the entire study is secondary. This is the issue we need help with. My detailed arguments, along with those of Doors, are on the article talk page here.
Doors and I have a long history of conflict, and we are trying to get off on a better footing, so any input would be real helpful. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 12:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
To assess generalizability, we evaluated eligibility for the 3 manufacturer-sponsored trials26,27,32 referenced in the Clinical Studies section of the full prescribing information for finasteride, 1 mg, using as our data source the Northwestern University Enterprise Data Warehouse, a clinical data repository of ambulatory and hospitalized patients, providing laboratory data and diagnosis codes from 1992 through 2013 and comprehensive electronic medical record data from January 2001 through September 2013. We applied a 1.25-mg dose threshold because tablet splitting of the 5-mg dose was widely used as a cost-saving measure. We identified all International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for the cohort of men prescribed finasteride, 1.25 mg/d or less, in the clinical data repository and identified 345 exclusionary ICD-9 codes based on the exclusion criteria for the 3 trials26,27,32 referenced in the full prescribing information for men younger than 42 years. Principal exclusion criteria included significant abnormalities on screening physical examination or laboratory evaluation.26,27
So, that part of their conclusions is original research reported in the Belknap paper. The Belknap paper also has sections performing a review of the clinical trial literature, but that part in particular is original research reported in that paper, and the Belnap paper is PRIMARY for that. (i believe that this is what Formerly was trying to communicate in his edit note, which i have found garbled nonsensish until now) The accompanying editorial (Moore PMID 25831198) is an editorial, not a review. This is indeed the kind of the thing that we wait for a review to integrate. Do folks here see that, or do you disagree? Please do weigh in. Thanks
I also want to say that I think that both Belknap and Moore make it clear that we don't have good data showing whether there are or are not long term effects (not correlation) in some small amount of men - both emphasize the difficulty of getting that kind of data, ever. They could be both used to make a statement like that. Jytdog ( talk) 01:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I found this interesting article: Generous, N.; Fairchild, G.; Deshpande, A.; Del Valle, S. Y.; Priedhorsky, R. (2014). "Forecasting diseases using Wikipedia". PLOS Computational Biology. 10 (11). Medicalxpress.com: e1003892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003892. PMC 4231164. PMID 25392913. Retrieved 2015-05-16. -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Wondering if others could comment here Talk:Alcoholism#Main_links Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
came across Sinecatechins today while doing something else and realized we had nothing on the drug class. Jytdog ( talk) 01:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
by the way, i am a bit stymied by what do with the relationship among Epigallocatechin gallate, green tea extract (which is horrible) and Sinecatechins... Jytdog ( talk) 17:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Nicely done! What interesting to me is that people measure antioxidant potential of these polyphenols and think more is better. But another way of saying that these compounds are antioxidants is to say they are easily oxidized, and the oxidation products they form are not necessarily more innocuous than the ones they prevent. Epigallocatechin is not only cytotoxic, our article lists it as a carcinogen. For all the articles in the literature discussing its enzyme inhibition properties at high micromolar concentrations, I'd guess that it's oxidation product is a good old fashioned DNA alkylator. The tea drinking countries of the world also have the highest rates of liver cancer, though HBV is an obvious confounder, Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Botanical drug was on the main page a few hours ago. See Wikipedia:Recent additions#15 May 2015 for the entry. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
some groovy fun (more neuroscience than medicine) but needs some work, as do the daughter articles Binaural beats and Monaural beats. poor Brainwave entrainment has been tagged for help since 2008. oy. Jytdog ( talk) 15:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This garbage was just installed at tic disorder; can anyone tell me what it is and what good it does our readers or anyone else? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
An authority control is a unique identifier that allows libraries throughout the world to identify a subject unambiguously. It is used by researchers and library catalogues to ensure that their searches are finding the precise topic required. To take an extreme example, if you have a look at the bottom of our article on Alexander Graham Bell, you'll see that there are around a dozen different identifiers for him, e.g. VIAF, LCCN, SUDOC, etc., many of which are language specific: LCCN (the Library of Congress Control Number) is English (American to be precise); SUDOC (Système universitaire de documentation) is French; NDL ( National Diet Library) is Japanese; and so on. It is unfortunate that Tic disorder only has the NDL identifier recorded on Wikidata so far, so all you see when following the link is Japanese. I'm sure it's helpful for any Japanese researchers or librarians who are browsing our article - which appears to be a little better developed than the corresponding article on the Japanese wiki. If anyone knows any English authority controls for Tic disorder, I'd gladly update Wikidata with them - or show you how to do that if preferred. Hope that helps. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that Template:Authority control is really intended (read tested) for people. For medical subjects use http://id.loc.gov/ (think http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85135241 ) or the (beta) http://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/ . Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I've made some extensive edits to the Low THC cannabis article that I suspect will be controversial. Input from other editors is highly welcome. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 23:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you please do me a favor? I unwatched that article because what you have done there-- tossing MEDRS out the window to write a promotional advocacy piece, which undermines MEDRS for ALL of our medical content heneceforth-- disgusts me more than anything I have ever seen in here. Would you please keep your discussion over there so I don't have to see it? Thank you, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Really, we need to clean our own house before we throw stones. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Let's seek to understand this.... Reporting that homeopaths use homeopathy to treat all kinds of diseases, and some chiropractors claim to use spinal manipulation to cure cancer, MS, heart disease, deafness, and allergies, is not "disinformation", it is reporting what they claim to do. That is our job. Documentation of nonsense is not promotion of nonsense. We must report that, without promoting it in Wikipedia's voice as if it's actually a scientifically proven option. (That's the balancing act in all our alternative medicine articles.) You will note that those articles, and the CW article, make it clear that such claims are unproven and reports of healings are anecdotes. There is plenty of content which makes that clear. More research is needed. That's what everyone says, and that's what we report. We do it because RS say so.
Instead of making these vague aspersions here, try getting very specific at the article, instead of forum shopping here. I want to see the exact words which could be misunderstood. When that has been done at the article, I have made changes to meet those concerns.
The one thing I won't do is strip the body of that Corvette (CW) so you can hijack its chassis for the "chassis museum" article ( Low THC cannabis) you want to write. Our Corvette (CW) would be gone, and it happens to have far more than enough independent notability to justify its existence as an article. Our notability policy won't disappear just to suit you in this case. I'm sticking by it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind keeping it over there? Much obliged, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I reverted some changes by this user as explained on the talk page of the article in question Talk:Traumatic_brain_injury#Reverted_new_additions_as and their user page. The issues revolve around very old references from the 1980s being used and language changes that do not make sense.
They have left some usual comments on my talk page that also do not make sense User_talk:Doc_James#Traumatic_brain_injury. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
References
There is some very strange stuff on your talk, Doc, which reminds me of another recent situation on another article. I see Jytdog is attempting dialogue on talk, but I am thinking this is something Beeblebrox might look in to. Clearly, the edits need to be removed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
They wrote this page
Community_integration And they refer to themselves and use a lot of sources of which they are an author. Appears to be the author of
[15]
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 01:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hailed as a pioneer in exploring the basic principles of stem cell [17] biology, Elaine Fuchs of Rockefeller University has been named the winner of the 2015 E.B. Wilson Medal,the highest scientific honor awarded by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). It will be presented at the ASCB's Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA, on December 15. [18]...-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
following content was added in this dif
Despite its history of use, there is no evidence that backboards significantly immobilize the spine, nor do they improve patient outcomes. Cervical spine immobilization has been shown to increase mortality in patients with penetrating trauma. [1]
References
- ^ "The Evidence Against Backboards". EMS World. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
Not sure that source complies with WP:MEDRS... Jytdog ( talk) 17:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Correlation between digit ratio and traits" of the article " Digit ratio", I think there is an error in interpretation of a scientific source. Or at least, confusion can be caused. In the table, there is an item "Increased rate of Autism Spectrum Disorders (when comparing digit ratio to general population)[52]" in the column "low digit ratio" (which is completely correct, no problem here), and an item "Increased rate of Asperger syndrome (when comparing digit ratio to person's father)[52]" is in the column "high digit ratio" (which is somewhat problematic).
The reason the second item is problematic is the following. The whole table is about traits, compared to general population. The item about Asperger's however, in the right column, refers to the expected digit ratio compared to the father's digit ratio (which is of little interest in a table about traits, and confusing as it might lead people to believe that Aspergers have a high digit ratio, while in reality they have a low digit ratio).
The confusion is even enlarged by the fact that nowhere in the table is mentioned that, compared to general population, Aspergers have lower digit ratio. The source [52], which is this article: " The 2nd to 4th digit ratio and autism, is very clear on this point: "Children with AS (...) had higher 2D:4D ratios than children with autism but lower ratios than population normative values."
I changed the article " Digit ratio" as follows:
(I am new to editing/talking on Wikipedia, so I apologize for any errors, mistakes or bad practices.)
-- Bartvanaudenhove ( talk) 07:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I am working on doing a small sample study of the quality of cardiology articles. I have a couple of cardiologist and "cardiologist-in-training" lined up for a blinded evaluation for a couple randomly selected of the higher rated articles (will properly be GA and B) compared to... and here I am bit of a lost. I need some sort of golden standard in English for the comparison.
Most of my textbooks are in Danish so my knowledge of English textbooks is limited. I am thinking of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. Is this a book known to most physicians educated in countries where English is the main language? Is it a book of high enough quality to be considered some sort of standard? Does anybody have a better suggestion? A think it would be best to avoid a pure cardiology textbook since there will be a different assumption of the readers knowledge and depth compared to what Wikipedia is written for.
All comments and suggestions are welcome and if somebody would like to look over the protocol when I get that far you are more than welcome. ...and sorry if somebody feels I went a bit off topic for this forum. Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 18:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
just reviewed and declined this. others may have different opinions. Jytdog ( talk) 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The smegma article seems to be pushing a POV and cherry-picking pro-smegma primary sources. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Some addition eyes on this would be appreciated, especially per the discussion on the Talk page regarding ER visits associated with Cannabis use and whether the US Department of Health and Human Services is a reliable source. Thanks. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 01:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98, a new review. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-source=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |lay-url=
ignored (
help)"Leaky heart valve" seems to be a layman term for a range of conditions.
I think in all cases when this term is used it refers to Regurgitation (circulation). That article is about a heart plumbing phenomena, and not any medical condition, and anyway that is a disambiguation article. I think the most common cause of this kind of regurgitation is Valvular heart disease.
I just made leaky heart valve a redirect to valvular heart disease. I do not have good sources because getting precision is difficult for layman terms. If anyone has a better idea, could someone change this redirect? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
have been on this article (as has TylerDunden8823), should "treatment table" section be replaced for a more condensed explanation of the four conditions stated?(give opinions here or at talk page) thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 16:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
An unsourced statement about sinus rinsing to keep nasal polyps from growing back after surgery arouses my suspicions. More importantly, it occurs to me that some here might quickly add some good treatment resources to help push out the bad. Wnt ( talk) 13:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you reckon Extrinsic pathway could use a disambiguation page? It's too vague a term in my opinion. Let me know your thoughts and ping me if possible. It came to my attention when reading Prothrombin time and noticing the wikilinks in the lede had nothing to do with coagulation. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Biologists can be quite cheeky. Yes, the sciences in general are quite underdeveloped, we're just needles in a haystack. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
POV fork? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not good at writing AFD rationale (or someone has to set up a merge discussion ?), so I'm at least flagging the primary sources for now (basically, it's an article pushing one primary source,
PMID
24715950. The
editor who let it out of AFC needs to become familiar with Wikipedia policies, and probably shouldn't be working at AFC. POV fork-- redirect to Morgellons.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 02:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
And lest the issue get lost among the rabble, there continues to be quite a mess at Morgellons, and the editor who created the (too long to type article name above) has turned the talk page into a bit of a quagmire. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Search Draft: space
Type a keyword and click on the button. Optionally, add "review waiting" to see only drafts under review, or "CSD G13" for only abandoned drafts. [[Draft:]] |
Chris Squire, the bass player in my favourite band, Yes, has just been announced as suffering from acute erythroid leukemia (AEL) and the news is beginning to get some mainstream media coverage. Unsurprisingly, hits to the AEL article have shot up. I've gone to the page and done a bit of work on it, but it's a rare condition so I haven't found any systematic reviews/guidelines/textbooks on AEL as WP:MEDRS prefers. Any help/suggestions appreciated. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I can take a look in DaVita Oncology when I get home tomorrow. Keilana| Parlez ici 17:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The "Contributors" link, at the top of articles like Achondrogenesis type 2, is not working (it's generating a code 301, "Permanently moved"). Would someone who knows what is behind this link (see Category:Articles with contributors link for more information) fix it? Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This needs a significant amount of attention, there are like a gajillion primary studies that don't seem to meet MEDRS, many of which are animal and/or in vitro studies. Everymorning talk 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
[30] ..I deem this a good read, thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 09:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
did a few edits on this calcium channel blocker and Acral Lentiginous melanoma (if anyone would like to chip in please do). thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Could someone who speaks images better than I do look at this situation at Deep brain stimulation? The username who added it is the same as the author on the study, I don't know if the image is correctly licensed, and I don't know if we're OK using that primary source to cite the image caption (I suspect it's fine, but ... way technical for me). And, depending on that outcome, then the (new) editor needs to be approached about COI. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I have one complaint about the image: why did they make the red nucleus green? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
non-related to wikimed project--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk) 20:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC))
|
---|
|
This is at AFD, so I was wondering what other medical editors thought about whether brand names in general/this specific one are independently notable or if it should be redirected to paracetamol. Everymorning talk 14:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
When people search for a brand name of a medication they are most commonly looking for a discussion of the medication not of the brand itself.
The solution I propose is moving all notable brands to "Name of brand" (brand) and than having the brand name redirect to the generic. We then link from the generic article in the lead to "Name of brand" (brand). For none notable brands we simply redirect to the generic.
This allows reads to get the med info they need without it being duplicated. It allows those who truly care about brands to find this info and those who wish to write about them to do so. It also makes clear that brand articles are about the brand not the medication in question.
It decreases the prominence we give brands so that people are less inclined to carry out brand name spamming which I have been seeing a lot lately for Indian brand names. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I know there's not much appetite for yet another discussion on alternative medicine, but for those who want to help resolve this longstanding and seemingly never-ending dispute, your input over here is greatly appreciated. - A1candidate 00:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
(I've posted this at Jimmy's talk page but thought it might interest members here.)
We need a bigger sample to be certain, but it appears to be the case. I took a sample of 40 of our 30-odd thousand medical articles and checked where they rank in Google searches. We were first in 24 searches, second in 11, and third, fifth, seventh, eighth and ninth in the other five. User:Anthonyhcole/Google rank of WPMED pages. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
We also come first on virtually any google search for a chemical that is a dietary supplement, OTC drug, pharmaceutical, or illicit substance; this might simply be true for literally any compound as opposed to just pharmacological agents. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably worth just pointing this out: interlinking an article within wikipedia is literally the most significant factor in boosting the google search ranking for it; adding external links to other websites that are ahead of wikipedia in the search ranking will usually maintain that page's ranking ahead of the wikipedia article. External linking to another webpage which isn't ahead of wikipedia will usually put it on the first page of a google search simply because of how much weight the google search algo assigns to outgoing links from heavily interlinked wikipedia articles (e.g., I external linked to
[35] from FOSB and, as a result, it was boosted from, IIRC, a 2nd page entry to being the 2nd entry when
googling ΔFosB).
Their search algo is basically just a really big
linear system which assigns a webpage's search ranking based upon a weighted average of links to that page from other webpages, where the weighting of a particular incoming link is based mostly (or entirely, provided it didn't change since I took linear algebra in college
) upon the search ranking of the incoming link's webpage (its ranking is also based upon the weighted average of that page's incoming links). Or, in plain English, for a particular search phrase, every webpage's search rank is based upon the search rank of all other webpages that link to it.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢) 17:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There are some weird comments on Talk:Human papillomavirus and I think the commentator is trying to use sarcasm but I'm having trouble understanding exactly what they mean. If their concerns are valid, I have some more recent references to insert to replace the older ones that I found while working on Cervical cancer. Best Regards,
I suspect this article should be moved, perhaps to Epidemiology of metabolic syndrome. I'm also concerned that the Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism (cited several times in the article) does not meet MEDRS, given that it has no IF and is not indexed in MEDLINE. Everymorning talk 19:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The list List of microbiota species of the lower reproductive tract of women is listed on main page today. Yeah for Project Medicine! Best Regards,
These 3 articles are on a short chain fatty acid which is produced in the microbiome and affects neurological function (among basically everything else) by acting on epigenetic drug targets. It's also sold OTC (usually as 1 of the salts), so we need a drugbox for it.
Question is: which page should these be merged to? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)