This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I just undid the insertion of a new murine study. We've watched a lot of interventions come and go, to the disappointment of many. A few get as far as stage three human trials. Short of that, we don't add them to this article. Alzheimer's disease clinical research can discuss less mature interventions. LeadSongDogcome howl! 03:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I just added a paragraph in the Other Hypotheses section describing Stanford Med's recent study which was published in Dec 2014. I worded it to reflect the findings of the study with mice, and quoted the lead investigator. The results of the test are published all over the internet. Atsme☯Consult 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed it. For medical articles we typically stick with review articles. Press releases are not good sources. Neither are primary sources. That NSAIDS may affect AD development is already well discussed. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
What about secondary and multiple reliable third party sources that wrote about it? I don't see why you removed the entire paragraph when you simply could have added an inline template for citation needed. Please talk to me in layman terms regarding NSAIDS and AD development. Where is it discussed? It obviously wasn't discussed in terms the average WP reader could understand. Thanks Atsme☯Consult 02:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
For medical assertions, we have significantly higher standards on what constitutes a wp:RS. These are detailled at wp:MEDRS. This is a wp:FA seen by a huge number of readers, many of whom are affected directly by a disease that is generally recognized as one of the largest health challenges the world faces. We do not want to raise false hopes. Various discussions around one mouse study or another are classic examples of what we don't want. When there eventually is a substantial finding on the disease mechanism or a useful intervention, it will be backed up by independent corroboration and shouted from the rooftops. It will be reviewed in Nature, Lancet, or JAMA. We won't have to guess about whether it means something or whether to include it. Meanwhile there is wp:NODEADLINE. LeadSongDogcome howl! 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)