Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

Determining most edits to project-included articles by user

Hello - I was informed at the WikiProject Council that WP Medicine at some point determined who made the most edits to your included articles. Can someone please direct me to how I can do that for another WikiProject? I would like to analyze who to invite to join WP Louisville. By the way, I really admire how active and well-structured WP Medicine is. Thanks for any leads! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Louisville? It shows all recent contributors to articles tagged by the project. Sizeofint (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's close to what I'm looking for, thanks. Maybe I can get them to show the number of edits next to each entry. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We have specific data here for WikiProject Med. It was developed using tools to handle large data sets. If you are a programmer would be possible to duplicate what was done. It was based off the very large data files. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a programming background and could probably take this on if I had to, but at this point, for the simple information for a small WikiProject I'm looking for, I think I'll just wait for the information to be added to the WikiProject Directory. They are already listing editors who've worked on project-included pages; it should be a minor additional step to indicate how much or what they're editing. At any rate, I'm very impressed what's been done for WP Medicine here, and your project in general inspires ideas for other projects. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Stevie is the man! should you have further questions don't hesitate to ask--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Party and play

HIV

I've added the Party and play article to WikiProject Medicine because of the public health risk through unprotected sex with large numbers of sexual partners: see this BMJ editorial. I'd greatly appreciate any help editors on this project could bring to bringing this article up-to-date and improving the number and quality of citations. -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• more editors are encouraged to help--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• oh yes indeed. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

Editors here may remember that the "post-finasteride syndrome" article was deleted as non-notable. It appears that there is an attempt at coatracking the legitimacy of this "syndrome" on this foundation webpage, more eyes would be appreciated. Not sure that this foundation webpage meets WP:N criteria, either. Yobol (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Will more editors please take a look to give their opinion? AlexBRN's most recent reversion merely says " Rv. to good, this ain't encyclopedic this stuff" which is a very unhelpful comment. The article is being accused of coatracking because many editors here don't want to acknowledge anything about post finasteride syndrome however when you have a foundation that's main purpose is dedicated to researching the syndrome the matter is nearly one in the same. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I did expand on my comment on the Talk page. Yeah, this is yet another attempt by you to coatrack your agenda into Wikipedia. I think what "many editors here" are really thinking is that their patience with this campaign is getting exhausted. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Post-Finasteride_Syndrome_Foundation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Model release - medical photos and more - legal review - WMF grant proposal

I am seeking comments and hopefully endorsements on a draft request to the Wikimedia Foundation for grant funds. If you like, please comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release.

For some time I have been collecting examples in Wikimedia projects in which there is some disagreement about whether an image violates personality right and would require a model release to host in Wikimedia Commons. See examples in the discussion sections at

• meta:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Development of a model release process for photos and video

For context on Wikimedia Commons policy, see

• Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people
• Commons:Commons:Country specific consent requirements

Currently, the major criteria for determining if an image is appropriate for inclusion in Commons is whether it has a free copyright license. Some other criteria, including personality rights, are discussed sometimes. My expectation is that Wikimedia Commons will continue to consider only copyright, but in some cases, when someone voluntarily seeks a model release and the photographer and model together agree to post their release in Wikimedia Commons, then I would like for such contributors to have access to a standard model release form which has legal review and is backed by community input.

I found a nonprofit organization with expertise in model releases. They are the Fashion Law Institute and are based in New York City. Among other things, they provide curricula to law schools and fashion schools which want to present classes on fashion law. They also help fashion, advertising, and media companies set policy regarding fashion and communication. I have assisted them in partnering with meta:Wikimedia New York City in drafting an application for a Wikimedia Foundation grant (meta:Grants:Start) to do legal review on the issue, provide expert opinions about when a model release may be used and should not be used, and to draft both a model release document and summary templates to apply to Commons uploads. In my opinion, this kind of legal research can only be done with some payment, and this is an appropriate organization to do this. One of their lawyers has had a Wikipedia account for some years as Fashionethics, and he is my point of contact.

This relates to WikiProject Medicine for several reasons, including the following:

• Some of our contributors take photos while using their own model releases, and it would be good to give them a reviewed standard model release
• It happens that sometimes we face trouble for using photos without model releases
• It might be nice to continue to confirm last year's US Copyright Office Decision that medical imaging is in the public domain as non-creative data

Again, comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release if you will. I am showing this to WikiProject Medicine participants before I show this more generally around Wikimedia projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You've clearly put a lot of work in to this project, and it is commendable. I would use a standardized release form were one available, because the survival of images is more guaranteed than at present, when it seems that any image can be removed by overzealous deletionists on commons at any time. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The release would be different between health care providers and non health care providers I image? Health care providers need to keep image release forms for their licensing body.

The Wikimedia Movement should not be handling these release forms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Doc James My expectation is that consent forms will never be managed in a Wikimedia project or in OTRS, which would make this process different from the copyright release. I would like Wikimedia projects to provide a CC-By text of a sample model release, then offer this to institutions or individuals who could use it. The validity of the text would come from its recognition in the Wikimedia community and also from the legal opinion of the Fashion Law Institute, who will endorse at least the initial version and perhaps later versions also. There might be an OTRS process in which an institution can say, "We confirm that we hold the model release" but I would not want them to actually share the model release.

If the release is used then I would expect local institutions to keep the document and information like the model's name. The host institution or individual uploader of the image would confirm "The subject in this photo agreed to this model release" and the template confirmation on Commons would only say that the uploader claimed to have the release. We would WP:AGF from there just as we do now.

I am not yet sure whether the form would need to be different for patients modeling for medical journals versus models posing for fashion magazines. If there is reason to differentiate then multiple versions could be produced. Fashionethics anticipated that perhaps one form and one release could be used in most cases. The nature of the release would be that the model confirms understanding of free licensing and distribution of their photo generally on the Internet, and not only in Wikimedia projects. Personality rights are a separate but related issue - I am not sure how those would be addressed in this system but Fashion Law Institute might be able to say what is and is not generally appropriate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

New image, a painting by Edvard Munch in Borderline personality disorder

Unfortunately, a user reverted the inclusion (as seen here) of the image. After that there was a discussion on the talk page. However, the controversy could not be resolved. Therefore, third opinions would be most welcome. Thanks to all.--Saidmann (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The caption for the new image has now been updated and extended, containing now three references. The case of the Munch painting is also compared to the case of a van Gogh painting in Major depressive disorder. The connection between mental disorder and painting clearly is much stronger in the Munch case than in the van Gogh case. Opinions on this issue will be most welcome. Thank you in advance.--Saidmann (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

Additional eyes would be appreciated on this article. Old material from QW is being edit warred back in after being removed [2] (by same editor who was correct to initially remove it since it's over ten years old and newer sources are available) in the absence of consensus and in violation of WP:BRD and has removed well-sourced content. Thanks everyone! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• need more opinions at article/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting rid of MEDRS safety information when merging articles?

Various E-liquid Bottles

The articles E-liquid and Electronic cigarette aerosol were merged recently following a inconclusive discussion at [3], but with the removal of nearly all safety information from the articles. The following edit gets rid of several sections concerning the safety and health effects of the substances [4]. CFCF 💌 📧 21:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The information that replaced it was from the "Safety" page. Its all "safety" information. Chemical claims were moved to the Safety page, they were not simply removed. Though most of it didnt need to be moved because the article as it sat was not a daughter page, but simply a copy and paste coatrack. This was done in accordance of consensus at a merge discussion.[5] Unilaterally replacing things you fought against in that closed discussion but were not found in your favor isnt how things should be done. Opening a discussion on the page and finding if there is consensus to have the material in the page is the way, not running to a wikiproject first before discussion on the articles talk page. AlbinoFerret 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Patent nonsense from the editor who deleted the information – despite intense criticism and lack of any support for getting rid of the edits. The merge itself was premature, and was performed to the horribly named new article Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid. The problem with these articles is that they are overlooked by the majority of medical editors, and this needs more eyes.
It should not be possible to avoid scrutiny by removing content in a questionable merge that would never have removed through ordinary editing process on an article. WP:COATRACK is an essay, while the section WP:SYNC "Keeping summary sections and detailed articles synchronized" is an editing guideline! CFCF 💌 📧 07:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally when performing a merge the content should be copied verbatim from the source and its provenance labelled clearly in the edit summary (for license integrity reasons). Then (or beforehand) it can be fettled. If somehow during this process excisions were silently made that were non-neutral, that would be a concern. Unless agreed as part of the merge discussion, I would expect a merge operation not to result in any lost knowledge in our overall content. Given some of the problematic history of these articles, I'd expect any editor performing a merge to be alert to the need for caution. Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This was more than a simple merge. The article "Electronic cigarette aerosol" before the work done was a coatrack. The page was not about aerosol, but toxicology, simply copied and pasted claims from Safety of electronic cigarettes, not broken out as a daughter page is normally done leaving a summery and link to the new page. Leaving two pages on toxicology, and the aerosol information still on Safety. This was discussed in an earlier section of the main articles talk page,[6] linked to in the merge discussion.[7] The toxicology information was moved back to safety per the merge discussion. The aerosol section was moved to the aerosol page per the merge discussion. A summery was left in its place and a link to the page added. Then e-liguid was merged in. What we have now is a true daughter page, that can be synced and everything was copied verbatium. Nothing was lost. The information all exists on WP, its just on different pages. The so called "removal" of information can be found here [8]. Each claim that was taken off of Aersol either already existed in the toxicology section of Safety or was moved there. All done per a merge discussion, that was closed by an uninvolved admin as having consensus. What this section is, is forum shopping and since the original post was non neutral, canvassing. AlbinoFerret 13:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• more opinions at Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Synonyms in infobox?

Not sure if this has been suggested before but could be a solution for dealing with a list of synonyms. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I like it for when their are lots. We have one or two in the lead and than others in the infobox.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. For some reason that I cannot recall, the use of this INFOBOX may be able to be used by the wiki data people. I can imagine some future analytical program using information from this kind of INFOBOX to assist people in diagnosis. I realize that this is not the purpose of the encyclopedia, but if the data is already entered and part of the encyclopedia, a searchable database would be valuable to clinicians. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Who could I contact to make a mock up of an infobox with a list of synonyms? Ping bluerasberry incase they have any suggestions. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Some existing templates, notably template:Infobox drug, already contain lists of synonyms -- you could look there, I suppose. Looie496 (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done see Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome. IMO we should only have the most common ones in the lead text. Less common can be moved to the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Next assume would be to seek consensus to see if there is support for this. Is there still an AFC open currently about infobox changes? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is an excellent idea, especially when there are more than two synonyms since this often clutters the lead's first sentence. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Disadvantage is that mobile users can't see the infobox as far as I'm aware. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You may be thinking of {{Navbox}} which are not displayed on mobile. Mobile users can see infoboxes (see for example testcases). The problem with infoboxes on mobile is that collapsed sections are displayed uncollapsed (see request). Boghog (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

exactly [9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Clinical infoboxes

Added a few further details to a new more person centered box here. Some is pulled from Wikidata but I am finding Wikidata so slow to edit that it will be much faster to hand build here on EN WP.

Also not sure how to bring over refs from Wikidata. Does anyone else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

About that box: Overall I like it, and of course we just leave out any item that's too long or complicated to list. But is there a generic "treatment" section, or is it just "medication"? I see that "medication" is listed in the example at Gout, and I expected to see dietary changes included, since diet modifications are important for that condition.

I'm not sure how to get the refs from Wikidata, but do you actually need them? In theory (for a reasonably well-developed article, etc.), there should be almost nothing in that infobox that isn't written and sourced in the article itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I find the new infobox is much cleaner and far more usable (if I need to look up the ICD-code I'm happy to scroll down to the bottom of the page). I agree that it is preferable to edit these things on Wikipedia for now (they can always be imported once we have enough data).

There are some additional issues that we would solve by doing this as well:

1. Adding sources to Wikidata is difficult: I tried to find a way to add alopurinol and got stuck when I tried to source it—and as you say, even when it is sourced, it isn't visible.
2. Ibuprofen is just one of an entire class of NSAIDs that may be used to treat gout, and the preferred type varies between countries and patient's other risk-factors (Cochrane review PMID 25225849). I can't find a way to add a class of medication, only single medications to this list, this would be very easy on Wikipedia.

CFCF 💌 📧 17:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The same is also true of prednisone, which is not used very much in Sweden, in favor of prednisolone, so it would be more apt to link the class glucocorticoids. CFCF 💌 📧 17:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We need to stick with what the sources say. The reference on Wikidata (d:Q133087) is http://www.niams.nih.gov/Health_Info/Gout/ and that makes no mention of ibuprofen. I have changed that Wikidata entry to read non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug as is indicated in the reference, and that has now been automatically reflected in the Gout infobox. We could, of course, override that with any text we choose by supplying a value for a |medication= parameter in the infobox. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I used specific agents rather than the classes of medications. Happy with classes aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Have had a disagreement here Talk:Gout#Testing_new_infobox regarding if a single article can use this new infobox. Wondering what peoples thoughts are? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A limited test seems reasonable, but not worth an edit war. — soupvector (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should try and implement this one more pages soon, but before doing that is there any way we can make the first entry capitalized by default from Wikidata? For example so that the gout article says Specialty: Rheumatology and not rheumatology? CFCF 💌 📧 11:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with rheumatology being low case. We have way to many caps as it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Another example of what is wrong with the popular press

Just trimmed and placed here Talk:Antimicrobial_resistance#Text. Interesting overview here [10] that is much much less sesational. Not going to sell the tabloids but more accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

great improvement--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue

Just alerting editors of this project to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Creatine and testicular cancer

Some disagreement on what strength of sourcing is necessary to report a connection between these things. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Merger: 1994 plague epidemic in Surat

Hey folks! I've proposed merging 1994 plague epidemic in Surat into 1994 plague in India. It'd be great if some others could take a look and comment. (Discuss). Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• need opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

About One and a Half Syndrome

Hey I was going through the article on one and a half syndrome and the page doesn't seem to specify what the ipsilateral side and the contralateral side suffer from. Can some one make this more clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitrimal (talk • contribs) 07:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this helps. — soupvector (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Appreciation for WPMED

As 2015 comes to a close I hope you don't mind if I use some electrons to express my appreciation for the participants in this project. I am just an itinerant editor; you all have created and shepherded the most comprehensive and available biomedical resource on Earth. We cannot know how far the ripples will go temporally, but geographically they are global. Thank you all. — soupvector (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:soupvector for your works of support and also your involvement in this project :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Videos

An explanation of hemochromatosis

Hey All. The group doing medical videos at Khan has split off and formed joined a for-profit company called Osmosis. The good news is that this new organization is producing all their videos under a CC BY SA license (rather than using the CC BY SA NC license at Khan).

First videos are here and I have added them to the body of a number of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I really like the idea of creating med ed videos, but can't help but feel that since Osmosis is a for-profit education company (https://www.osmosis.org/plans) charging $199/year, that it is disingenuous for us to help them with free advertising via wikipedia. I would feel much more comfortable if videos were posted with just the logo and not a link to the website. Khan Academy is a different story since they are a non-profit, and the poster above is not being truthful by claiming that Osmosis is a spin-off. Their CMO is from Khan Academy and only joined them a few months ago, whereas Osmosis has been around for almost 3 years. Imagine Bank of America posting info videos with a link to their website on wiki pages regarding personal finance. Comment left unsigned by User:Chrisbospher

These are a great resource, but I wonder whether there's a formal/transparent process for peer review and feedback? For example, the video on liver fibrosis/cirrhosis states that fibrosis is irreversible, but that's clearly incorrect; people with cirrhosis due to HBV, and sometime those with cirrhosis due to HCV, experience regression of fibrosis after treatment (e.g. PMID 26206574). More generally, these videos have no explicit sourcing to MEDRS, they do not come from a recognized secondary source (this is a commercial entity, in fact), and their peer review process appears to be internal (the video I'm commenting on here was "reviewed by" Rishi Desai MD/PhD who is a the CMO of the company). While it might be hard for them to source these in the way we would an article, they would be far more valuable if these issues were explicitly and rigorously addressed. I will reiterate that I'm excited about their contribution of these videos - I just want to ensure that they are up to the standards (including process for improvement) of WP/WPMED. (I should also disclaim that I helped their founders with Osmosis during its early days, but I have no stake in the business) — soupvector (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I've noted another error - in the leukemia video - on its talk page here. This one is more cosmetic, but the nature of the error makes me think that an expert couldn't have reviewed it carefully. — soupvector (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

While firstly experts still make errors :-) Often it takes review by a number of experts and non experts to remove all errors and even then it is hard to get ride of them all. I will ping those involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

BY the way the leukemia video you mentioned is up for deletion as a better version is here. Not sure if they fixed the issue you raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Error is still there - I've made the comment on the new file's Talk page. Certainly, my main concern is the process for feedback and improvement - we all make mistakes! Thanks. — soupvector (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way they are happy to open up review of the scripts before the videos are created. Not sure if people are interested in doing this type of review? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

it would be good to review (I'm certain any/all issues can be ironed out)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

soupvector—I'm uncertain whether that single study will change what is otherwise considered a pretty well-founded truth. First if we can source the statement to a secondary source should we change it.
Doc James—It would be great if they could release their scripts prior to filming, we could definitely critique those without too much effort. CFCF 💌 📧 16:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF To what single study are you referring? Do you mean to refer to the review article I cited, which is just one example of multiple secondary sources that say the same thing, summarizing quite a few studies? (another example is PMID 25681399, a review article published in a first-rate gastroenterology journal and for which the senior author is Scott L. Friedman) Also, to what well-founded truth do you refer (and what is the basis for your claim - since I have cited a MEDRS and you have not)? — soupvector (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

soupvector—I stand corrected, but what remains is that the original citation is not marked as a review on pubmed (I should have taken more time to read it). Interesting and informative, as I was under the impression that it was irreversible. Best wishes, CFCF 💌 📧 11:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

They are interested in posting and having us review the scripts before they are sent. I will set up an area to do this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• New scripts will go here Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis. They are producing about 2 to 4 videos a week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • From our POV, that's a lot of review work, and it's best done by people who actually know the subject. I think we need a person (or two, ideally) who will coordinate reviews. Posting here's good, but tracking down the main contributors to a relevant article and posting requests on their talk pages would be better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a neat idea! I like it. On my end I don't have the bandwidth to do that, but I can continue to post our scripts as we write them. If someone else is willing to organize who reviews what, that would be spectacular.OsmoseIt (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey all someone has tagged all the videos for deletion on Commons here. As the new user above corrected stated Osmosis existed prior. It is simply that those doing the medical videos at Khan have moved to Osmosis. They are in the process of setting up a not for profit and that link would than go to the not for profit I image. By the way the video we received release from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has attribution at the end [11] but is is longer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced medical article

Tetanic contraction currently has no cites of any type at all to support it, which is not ideal for a medical article. Would anyone be interested in taking a look at it? -- The Anome (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I added a few citations. Perhaps better ones can be found, but I think the citations provided now fulfill the minimum requirement for a medcal article. Boghog (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Subclinical infection

Just wanted to point out this bit of unsourced text, and apparently pseudo-science, added here by CoherenceClinic (talk · contribs), that I removed from the page. Unfortunately it's been there since March 2013! 220 of ^Borg 02:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

thank you 220 of Borg (will go over article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that is a bad one. Good catch. CFCF 💌 📧 11:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: yes, a bit surprised it slipped through. It sounds 'techie' though, which may fool a lot of people. Being an electronic tech helped I think as my BS detector pinged, loudly.
@Ozzie10aaaa: Edits to Biophoton may need a close look too! 220 of ^Borg 14:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

will look (as it falls under wikiproject Biology, dealt only w/ MEDRS issue edits) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Many infections have a period were they are minimally symptomatic but contagious to others. Some infections exist in a carrier state which is somewhat different. We do have an article on Asymptomatic carrier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Clyde cancer cluster

Hello, people of WikiProject Medicine. I've created this message to notify active members of the project, especially to those who know a lot about or are interested in cancer. If you are, I need help improving my article about the Clyde cancer cluster, a cancer cluster in Clyde, Ohio that has received a massive amount of news coverage. I'm not at all saying minor edits or improvements are bad, but I'm specifically looking for people who can help me long-term with a lot of co-research to improve the article to reach Good Article status. If you're interested in helping, the things needed to be improved are listed on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster#Improvements. In other words, more material needs to be added to improve the article, and I want more people to edit because I feel like I'm the sole editor. Regards, Philmonte101 (talk)

will look (added two MEDRS refs)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Philmonte101—Many of the sources used are poor or cite popular press for statements that should require higher sourcing standards. Also there is no clarification as to why these cancer cases are thought to be related beyond being from the same area. An incidence of two cases per year in a small town isn't remarkable on its own, you need something better before defining it as a cluster. For a cluster you need a markedly increased rate compared to the average—which can not be explained through random chance (preferably also of similar types of cancer). I hate to tell you, but it's unlikely this can reach GA at all, if it even reaches WP:NOTE. CFCF 💌 📧 13:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC) 

CFCF I see what you're saying, and don't take my words wrong, thanks for criticizing, it's constructive. But isn't Wikipedia all about what it says in the sources? Pretty much all the sources refer to this incident as "the Clyde Cancer Cluster" (notice they often capitalize cancer and cluster incorrectly) or something similar, like the Ohio Cancer Cluster, or the Sandusky County Cancer Cluster, Clyde Area Cancer Cluster, Clyde, Ohio Cancer Cluster, etc. If it weren't actually a cluster, we should at least say that "most people believe it's a cluster but it's actually not" in the article or something like that. Because even if it wasn't even what people call it, it still qualifies for an article, because it's an incident of concern. From what I've gather, and I didn't put it was necessarily true in the article, but I'm pretty confident that it was, at least mostly, Whirlpool's fault for dumping the PCBs and emitting illegal gases. I think most other people, at least in Clyde, would agree with me on that one, even the attorneys themselves. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Some official court documents and such define the Clyde cancer cluster as real as well. Again, please see User:Philmonte101/Clyde cancer cluster/References, for a full list of references I'm going to use for the rewriting of the article. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Oh, and about the challenge you gave to the article about "pure chance", I would like to note to you that, and I did know this from the start, it still could've happened by pure chance, or for another fault than Whirlpool's. I don't think you'd ever find a reliable source that said "It was definitely Whirlpool's fault." All that happened was they found PCBs in a public park that they used to own in one of the surrounding towns, and found benzaldehyde in people's homes, and assumed that it must have been emitted from the factory. There is no evidence that these two things are linked with the cancers at all, but it is extremely likely that it is. Because it is still technically unconfirmed what caused the cancers even at this point, the Clyde cancer cluster can still have an article telling about all the investigations and court cases regarding the cluster, because there are like a hundred sources out there regarding the incidents. People are indeed assuming that Whirlpool was at fault because of the their confirmed dumping of illegal toxic waste into a public park, and I don't blame them because this actually seems like a logical explanation; to ignore something like that in a court case about the cluster is inhumane. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"Cancer cluster facts: Clusters occur when there are more cancer cases than statistically expected in a specific area during a certain time." Philmonte101 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

very good information(lets concentrate on article) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Osmosis video review

Hello! We're the group who is making CC-BY-SA videos on medical topics freely available to Wikimedia. We received some feedback on our videos from the community which was fabulous. We'd like you to help us review our video scripts before we send them into production. If you're interested, check go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Osmosis OsmoseIt (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

the hypoxia text seems ok[12](gene expression?[13])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• need more editors to look/review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's the list of related articles:

• Aneurysms and Aortic dissection
• Arteriosclerosis, Arteriolosclerosis, and Atherosclerosis
• Ischemia
• Hypoxia

Ozzie10aaaa, do you have time to figure out who the top contributors to those articles are, and to leave a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis and a request for a review on their talk pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've read through all 4 of the currently-posted scripts, and have made some suggestions and corrections. I must emphasize that reading the script is quite a limited pre-review - no sources are cited, and the visual component (which is not available to this pre-review process) is quite important (for example, my earlier concerns about the leukemia article were as much to do with the visual indications as with the text). That said, I think these videos will be a useful resource. — soupvector (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Would be great to have others weigh in on these videos. I do hope that the commented Google Docs scripts will be retained as a record of peer review. If not (or alternatively), perhaps these discussions should happen on-wiki? I can imagine that Osmosis might prefer to keep them in a space they control, but retention plans should be transparent. — soupvector (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I bet they would be happy to move discussion to Wikipedia. Maybe they could also link from the videos somehow to this file? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura to Immune thrombocytopenic purpura

Hi folks. Let me start by saying I'm no doctor, but I know a bit about ITP. There has been a very slow moving discussion about making the move described above to the article Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Web sources are split from what I can tell (the Mayo Clinic still goes with Idiopathic, Merck with Immune). I think there is general concensous that this is an autoimmune disorder and so isn't really Idiopathic (if I'm using those words correctly). In any case, I'd like to hear what folks who know more about general naming conventions in medicine and medicine in general think. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

per [14] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless I see something else here soon, I'll do a proposed move thingy on the basis of the NIH name. Hobit (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

An additional, tertiary source [15] Little pob (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but as I said, reliable sources like the Mayo clinic ([16]) use Idiopathic. On-line sources seem split. Just thought to do an obvious search [17] and I think that's pretty convincing. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

ICD-10 says "idiopathic", and we almost always follow ICD-10 in these cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to figure it out, how often does ICD-10 get updated? My guess is "not until ICD-11", but I wasn't sure. Is there a valid argument that ICD-10 is just not updating names like this? Hobit (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Oil of clove

• Oil of clove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A apparently intractable dispute over sourcing and whether there is an agenda on the part of the US govt to suppress news of the efficacy of clove oil as a toothache treatment. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

commented on editors page[18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Conference

Hello all! The WikiProject Med Foundation and Wikimedia Cascadia are teaming up for WikiConference USA next year and we would love to have your feedback on the grant proposal since we're planning a dedicated medicine track for the conference. Thanks in advance! meta:Grants:PEG/Cascadia Wikimedians/WikiConference USA 2016 + WikiProject Medicine Conference 2016 Best, Keilana (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Vagus nerve stimulation

I was looking at the article on vagus nerve stimulation and cleaned up some references. I noticed that some, however, appear problematic from a MEDRS perspective (I am a scientist but not medically trained, so I would not presume to edit this sort of article substantively. Current references include a VNS message board (52 to 59), a dead link (32) and a website of unclear reliability (28). Would someone with medical knowledge and editing experience have a look at this article, please? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Cecil Frederick Robertson. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

additional ref[19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexuality after spinal cord injury at FAC

I have nominated Sexuality after spinal cord injury for Featured article status. If you have time I hope you'll take a look and let me know what you think at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1. Thank you! delldot ∇. 20:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

iridum vs iridium

Hi all, if any of you hard working WikiProject Medicine users get a chance, can someone please dig up a reference that supports "iridum" as the correct spelling as asserted in the lead?

Heterochromia of the eye (heterochromia iridis or heterochromia iridum; the common incorrect form "heterochromia iridium" is not correct Latin)

This spelling has drawn some recent attention and I do see "iridium" being used by otherwise reliable sources. Many thanks! Sorry for the homework assignment... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

[20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree it's "heterochromia iridis". OMIM is also an excellent source in situations like this. The last sentence of the first paragraph in that OMIM entry states that "iridis" (singular) applies to heterochromia in one iris, and "iridum" (plural) when the two irises differ in color. I do see a few MEDRS that use "iridium" when discussing the topic in passing, clearly (IMHO) consistent with a typographical/cognitive error - but I have not found a MEDRS describing "iridium" as a misspelling (so that critique in the lead sentence seems like WP:OR). Might be better to describe that spelling as uncommon. — soupvector (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This was raised in 2011 at Talk:Heterochromia iridum #Iridum vs. Iridium and I've commented there. I would suggest sticking to what we can find in sources. As far as I've been able to ascertain, neither "iridum" nor "iridium" are found in classical Latin, because Iris was the name of just one goddess and wasn't used in the plural. It's only much later that we adopt the word iris for a part of the eye in English and have attempted to create a plural form in pseudo-Latin. Both the "-um" and the "-ium" endings are found for other comparable (third declension) words in Classical Latin, so either would seem to be possible. We just can't say that one or the other is "not correct Latin". Is there a problem with picking the commonest from "heterochromia iridis", "heterochromia iridum" and "heterochromia iridium" as the title, and having the other two as redirects? --RexxS (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

All that you've said makes sense - but the issue currently (at least the one I was addressing) seems to be the first sentence of the lede - where alternative spellings are listed (and where an editor has characterized "iridium" as a misspelling without a RS). — soupvector (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe cite WP:Alternative name to that editor if you haven't already? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Looming deletions

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease already deleted Category:Cancer deaths by country & many more soon will be. Does anyone here care? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

• need more opinions(have commented[21])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• The main argument in favor of deletion appears to be that some editors believe that dying of cancer is too common to deserve a category. I don't believe that anyone has yet addressed the question of what cats are actually for, i.e., Might a reader want to read about notable people who died from cancer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)