From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Physiology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to the field of physiology.



What are the quotes around:

“Coordinating systems to regulate and integrate the function of differentiating cells.”

for? Is something being quoted that should be cited? thats all.

While trying not to be deliberately picky...but isn't Cushing's Disease the pituitary form while Cushing's Syndrome covers the adrenal and ectopic forms of the disease? Ianmc 22:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Cush. synd is also the iatrogenic form. Is your point that Cush disease is listed twice? I fixed it. I havent looked at the list for a while. It is very incomplete, and many conditions could logically be put in a couple of categories. One could just copy the contents page of an endocrine textbook here but none of have bothered. Alteripse 22:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No I am of the understanding that Cushing's Syndrome covers any form of ACTH driven or autonomous production of cortisol whereas Cushing's Disease is specifically that of an ACTH-secreting piuitary adenoma. Therefore Cushing's Disease shouldn't be listed as an adrenal endocrine disorder. I just thought it would be polite to ask before I altered the listing, I am aware that there is a medical group which looks after these pages--Ianmc 19:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • There are over a dozen causes of endogenous Cushing syndrome. You are correct that the term Cushing's disease is applied primarily to pituitary-ACTH-driven hypercortisolism (of which there are a couple of types). If the ACTH is suppressed or the ACTH is being secreted by a tumor outside the pituitary, we do not call it Cushing disease. However, not all cases of pituitary ACTH excess will have an identifiable tumor of the pituitary. In a minority the ACTH may be driven by hypothalamic CRH or even a CRH-secreting tumor. It's perfectly reasonable to describe Cushing disease as usually a pituitary disease, and in many textbooks, it is covered in the pituitary chapter. Alternatively, in some textbooks, it is described in the adrenal chapter among other causes of cortisol excess. In an online textbook like [], the same chapter is listed both as a subsection of the pituitary disease chapter and a subsection of the adrenal disease chapter. Feel free to move it around or duplicate it. As I said, this is sort of a haphazard disease list, with many things missing, and several of the conditions could arguably be listed in a different category or even in several categories. If you are taxonomically or nosologically inclined, we'd welcome a more comprehensive list of endocrine diseases than we have here-- bracket them and we'll quickly know what we have and what remains to be written. Don't take my reply as negative; thanks for the interest. Alteripse 20:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I added a link to Gender identity disorder to the list of "diseases". Although it isn't technically caused by a hormonal imbalance, hormone treatment is one of the primary methods used to treat transexuals. -- Marumari 20:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chapter additions[edit]


I've added a couple of chapters from my dissertation to this article, I hope no-one minds.

I kinda figured I might get a bit of free proof-reading! :)


"Bayliss and Starling (1902) first conclusively demonstrated the existence of hormones by observing that that acid instilled into the duodenum stimulated secretion by the pancreas, despite the fact that both organs were denervated and, further to this, that the action could be replicated by the intravenous injection of an extract of jejunal mucosa."

The forgoing sentence, like many that follow it, can present a substantial challenge for the lay reader. Consider the following suggestions to make it more readable.

Add first names to Bayliss and Starling. Where were they working? Had the existence of hormones been theorized before? If so, the paragraph could start something like, "Though scientist had theorized the existence of hormones for years, it was not until [year] that their existence was conclusively demonstrated by [Name] Bayliss and [Name] Starling. Working at [institution where they worked], they observed..." It would also help to explain the significance of the organs being denervated. It might be obvious to someone familiar with the field, but is anything but for those outside medicine. Just some idea. Martschink

I agree. Please do. And welcome. alteripse 01:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Many apologies... I made that part deliberately concise in order to impress my tutor. I should have realised that it would have the opposite effect on everyone else... hope the correction makes it easier...


"Endocrinologists treat disorders of the pituitary, ...and diabetes (although more commonly it is a diabetologist),"

I have been a type 1 diabetic for ten years and have never heard of a diabetologist. So while it is obviously true that diabetologists are specialists on diabetes, they do not treat diabetes more commonly than endocrinologists do. ErinOConnor 2 February 2005

You are correct, in many parts of the world, including North America, far more diabetes specialists are formally endocrinologists than diabetologists. alteripse 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Splitting-out the "diseases" section of the article[edit]

I think it makes sense to split-out the diseases section into a separate article called endocrine disorders or endocrine disorder or endocrine disease or endocrine diseases. Any thoughts?

Could use a research section in the work section.[edit]

I think a section in the work section describing what kind of research endocrinologists do would be a great addition. I'm sure I could include diabetes research, cancer research, maybe even some of the stress axis work, but I wouldn't really know what I'm talking about. Rhetth 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could use some proof reading[edit]

Roughly 7,000 to 80,000 endocrinologists in the USA? That's a big range... guessing it is either 7,000 to 8,000, or 70,000 to 80,000. Anyone know which is right? (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement[edit]

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Amine hormones, norepinephrine and triiodothryonine.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Burden of disease[edit] is a review of endocrine disease in the USA, at least the 54 ones with public health significance. Can I think of 54 endocrine diseases of public health significance? Let's see.... JFW | T@lk 10:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of sources[edit]

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the cleanup page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 4 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)