Talk:Atherosclerosis

I want to help improve this article

I appreciate all the hard work that has been done to get this article acknowledged as "B" class. That being said, I've spent the last seventeen years of my professional life studying the celluar and molecular mechanisms of atherogenesis and I would like this article to be much better. I want to help make this article be a better article. And *that* being said, I know zip about editing Wikipedia articles so I ask for help from more experienced Wikipedia editors.Cyclopiano (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC).

Hemorheologic-Hemodynamic Theory

This section really looks like a combination of spam and soapboxing. To attract the attention of more contributors, I have posted a notice at WT:MED (here). I have trimmed a small amount, but it really reads as if it is written, for the most part, as a speculative piece with minimal mainstream support (i.e. within the medical community it is a fringe theory). Right now I'm tempted to remove it, the only thing that's keeping me from doing so is the lack of access to sources. If the articles cited don't mention the theory specifically, this section is very much a synthesis, and therefore inappropriate for wikipedia per our policy on original research. A bit of digging on google scholar, google and google books turns up very few hits - far fewer than I would expect of a mainstream, heavily debated hypothesis (though about what I would expect of a pet theory published by a single researcher). Any thoughts? I posted a notice on the MED wikiproject pointing to this discussion (thus); this was mentioned once in the past, with minimal discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to split this idea off into its own article, so that this apparently non-mainstream idea can be reduced to WP:DUE weight for this article while still WP:PRESERVEing good information. Offhand, I'd guess that "due weight" would give this idea about one paragraph. (Shouldn't there be a standard pathogenesis section in this article? I didn't see one when I skimmed the TOC.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It apparently was an article before, Bongomatic merged from it here, it looked like this before. Lots of references, but they don't seem to actually discuss the theory itself - they are primary references that are synthesized to advance a theory.

I really can't support the section. There are almost no references in google. The sources used to justify the section were mostly primary, and didn't seem to use the words "Hemorheologic-hemodynamic theory" anywhere. The few that actually use the terms for the most part have a uniting factor in being by a single author - Gregory D. Sloop (formerly of the LSUHSC department of pathology, not any more). The search term gets 10 hits on google scholar. The first, second, seventh and tenth are all by Sloop, the first sourced to Medical hypotheses (which is the biggest red flag you can get for a medical topic that it's a fringe theory). The second, seventh and tenth are all by Sloop and published in a single journal - Atherosclerosis. I'd really like to get a copy of their editorial review board membership between 1999 and 2002 to see if he's on it. The third, fifth and sixth aren't references to the theory, the two words just happen to be next to each other in a sentence. 4, 8 and 9 seem legitemate, but that's still only three independent publications discussing the theory. 8 and 9 are essentially throwaway references to the theory stating that it exists, with no substantive discussion (and 8 is an animal model, and both are proposing alternative models of atherosclerosis that don't actually "endorse" the HHT). 4 is, like 8, a primary source.

The entire section is the product of essentially a single editor - Bigdaddypathologist, with less than 150 edits and most of those on this topic (both atherosclerosis, but more specifically the HHT within that page). I am really, really, REALLY uncomfortable with this remaining on a main page as if it were a serious, contemporary and accepted contender for the explanation of atherosclerosis. It may be true, but right now it is not seriously or substantially cited, referenced, mentioned, researched or discussed anywhere. This looks like classic soapboxing, and even if it is true, wikipedia is niether a crystal ball nor a publisher of original research. It's well-written, it certainly seems theoretically interesting, but it's still mostly an original research justification for the theory, with only a few legitemately used sources that are used to justify an enormous amount of undue weigth (in my mind). The following is what I could retain after trimming out most of the OR, and I'm still uncomfortable with keeping it until I can get a better look at the references to see if they actually mention HHT. The conventional explanation may be flawed, but it seems very obvious to me at least, that this isn't currently accepted as the answer. I would even be cautious in re-creating the old pages discussing the HHT for these reasons again. Simply put - how many pages do we have on medical subjects where the total number of references (including all primary sources, all speculative papers, and all "mere mentions") can be counted on less than two hands? Below is what remains, and note that the last reference to Heart is actually a letter to the editor. I really don't think this is appropriate as a section in the header-page for a major health topic. I really don't think it was appropriate to have such a lengthy section before I trimmed it, and I think at best this could be a separate stub. That's at best, I'd actually rather have it left out and the redirects deleted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of general discussion about this idea, I support the removal. When/if we get (substantially) more than a single person talking about it, then we can deal with it then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hemorheologic-hemodynamic theory

The hemorheologic–hemodynamic theory holds that atherosclerosis is a disease of stasis of blood, which promotes the organization of a thrombus into an atherosclerotic plaque. The hemorheologic-hemodynamic theory posits that thrombosis leads to both plaque development and its complication, superimposed thrombosis and infarction. The name reflects the fact that the interaction of hemorheologic, i.e., blood flow, and hemodynamic, i.e., blood velocity, pulsatility, and arterial geometry, factors lead to atherosclerosis. Mainstream theory provides no explanation for accelerated atherosclerosis associated with hypertension and cannot explain the presence of fibrous plaques in synthetic arteriovenous grafts. The hemorheologic-hemodynamic theory predicts that low-density lipoprotein (LDL) should increase blood viscosity and high-density liporotein (HDL) should decrease blood viscosity, which has been demonstrated experimentally. The hemorheologic-hemodynamic theory explains the existence of atherosclerotic plaques in synthetic arteriovenous grafts. Being largely inanimate, the capacity of these vessels to respond to an injury with an inflammatory response, the inciting cause of atherosclerosis according to mainstream atherogenesis theory, would be very limited. Further, this theory explains the benefit of blood donation.

atherosclrosis ia a diseaseaffecting arteries . it is commonly reffered to as a "narrowing" of the arteries. it is a chronic disease in which there is accumulation of fatty materials , abnormal amounts of smooth muscles , cholestrol , or fibrin in the arteries . "mishi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.63.37.16 (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Micelle

Calling LDL a "hollow molecule for carrying cholesterol" is plain wrong. More correct would be to say that the lipoproteins have formed a micelle, which is of low density because of a high cholesterol/lipid content. Anything else is humbug. Source: Biochemistry; Berg, Tymoczko, Stryer; sixth edition; page 744 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.146 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheromatosis

Should atheromatosis be a redirect to this article and cited inside it? I'm not sure if they are perfect synonyms. --capmo 17:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Research section would benefit from structure

The Research section seems a random collection. Can we find a review and structure it by approach and then chronology ? Rod57 (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Diagram

The diagram appears to be a modification of one in a published paper: The effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on endothelial dysfunction: Potential role in myocardial ischemia Original Research Article The American Journal of Cardiology, Volume 82, Issue 10, Supplement 1, 19 November 1998, Pages S23-S27 Carl J. Pepine

which is in turn based on these American Heart Associate guidelines: (Circulation. 1995;92:1355-1374.)

I suspect that this means that it is available under the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license." as stated. There is also a typo - "Clinical Collerlation" should be "Clinical correlation" or "clinical manifestation" or similar. AndyDScott (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cocaine and arrythmias

In light of cocaine being one of the causes of Ms Houston's death, we might consider adding a section on recreational drugs & cardio-vascular disease.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2002/177/5/cocaine-use-and-cardiovascular-complications "There is also evidence that cocaine can trigger cardiac arrhythmias, probably as a result of the enhanced sympathetic state and the direct effects of cocaine on the heart. The mechanisms are not fully understood, but several theories have been proposed..." 151.204.190.111 (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)