Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

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 30 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

New student-created article

A student created a new article on Ovarian squamous cell carcinoma. Give the length of the article, I don't feel confident doing even a basic once-over to make sure it doesn't content anything risky. And since it comes from an advanced pharmacology class rather than a medical class, I don't want to just assume it's probably good.

I have no specific concerns about the article - it looks mostly ok to me - but I would really appreciate if someone could take a critical look at it. Thanks all! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ajpolino, Colin, Keilana, and Johnbod: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not at all competent to check it. I've tried to de-orphan it by linking at Ovarian cancer & Squamous-cell carcinoma, I hope correctly. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sarcomadoc is a new editor who might be able to spot problems. MastCell would be another good option, but I don't know if he's around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked it over and saw nothing obviously concerning. That's quite an impressive article for a new editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Can someone access the source from which the Advantages and Limitations table comes in this section? The text of the source gives some indication we may need to be concerned about copyright, but I can't see the tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of the text in the table appears to be copied from text in the source. The source does not contain the same table. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I can take a look this weekend. Keilana (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Keilana are you able to deal with the copyright issues raised by Whywhenwhohow? I don't have access ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Got super busy at work and forgot about this, but I'm taking a look now with institutional access. Keilana (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Another

Alzheimer's disease and COVID-19 is from the same course, and is going to need a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Black box warnings 2nd project

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Black box warnings project is largely done.

As a further goal, I think we should include the text of black box warnings in the drug articles. I propose that a section of each article use a template to pull the text of the warning from wikidata, and that a bot put that section in all of the articles on drugs with boxed warnings. Does that sound like a good idea? a good plan for how to do it? Other ideas? Formatting ideas?.

(Perhaps a bot isn't needed? If I add a reference here , something automatically causes the reference section to appear below, even w/o {{refs}} in a References section. What? Useful? I doubt it, but maybe. Would be cool.)

(The warning text in Wikidata comes from the FDALabel database.)

A week ago, here, I proposed/made a request for help with part of this. I wrote in part, The text of each warning is generally concise and consists only of the most import warnings, so it may be worth [importing from the FDALabel database,] storing [in Wikidata] and adding to articles via wikidata. ... No response.

I was disturbed to find that most drugs with FDA-mandated black box warnings had articles that were missing any mention of the boxes or the risks. It is disturbing to me that many pages mentioned minor side effects but left this critical info out. Part 1 changed this, but there's more to do - adding the text of the warnings.

-- RudolfoMD (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

First, I think putting black box information on every drug that has one is important and useful. I'm not sure if there are equivalents of black-box warnings for other regulatory agencies (i.e., other than the US FDA), but if so, I think that should be put on the radar to be addressed once a satisfactory implementation has been found for the FDA-specific black box warnings.

I do not know much of anything about wikidata, but if there is any way to import that csv from the FDA website into wikidata such that it can be easily referenced, that seems ideal. My complaint before was that the infobox shows that a black box warning exists but there was no readily-available way for the reader to click through to read the text of the warning. There was previous discussion about the fact that medline does have the body of the warnings, and is perhaps easier to link to than the FDA's own data; the point was made that the FDA issues the warnings and so it should be the primary source used for this information. Is there perhaps a way to combine these: have the FDA link in the <ref></ref>, and perhaps also somehow link to the medline entry in the UI in the infobox? This way we link to the primary-source/issuer of the warning, but also provide the utility to the reader of being able to click through and read the warning text easily. Kimen8 (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

(Perhaps a bot isn't needed? If I add a reference here , something automatically causes the reference section to appear below, even w/o {{refs}} in a References section. What? Useful? I doubt it, but maybe. Would be cool.) Whilst {{Reflist}} is invoked even without the template, a bot can check and add the section – though I like to think an article on a drug with a regulatory warning would have references, and therefore already have a reference section. I don't know if the citation style is something a bot is capable of checking. Mentioning as citations should be consistent within a page (but isn't always), but might vary across a project's articles.

(Have added {{talkref}} below to keep the fake citation within the frame of reference)

Little pob (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed/misunderstood my proposal, Little pob? I'm wanting all of the articles on drugs with boxed warnings have a section something like:

=== Important Warnings ===

There's a black box warning about this drug, which reads
<imported from FDA via Wikidata:> Xoid will kill any patient with foo, and any patient taking Xoid with bar.

Will a bot be needed to add these -- that is one of my questions - I guess so but perhaps not. RudolfoMD (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it will be complicated. For example: Clonidine has a black box warning, but only for four injectable formulations, not for the more common tablets, and not even for all injectable formulations. There are four with black box warnings, but they don't give the same black-box warnings. One of them (XGen's) has a warning that "The 500 mcg/mL strength product should be diluted prior to use in an appropriate solution." Maybe the others don't have a 500 mcg/mL product? Both XGen's and PharmaForce's have a warning against using it for childbirth or surgery, but Hikma's injectable formulation doesn't, for no reason that I can discern.

In principle, I am in favor of including this information, but in practice, I'm not sure that it's feasible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's correct, that is annoying - does complicate this. Though I'm guessing and hoping it's rare.

I'd say Clonidine should say something like:

There's a black box warning about injectable formulations of this drug, which reads <warning> on the XGen label. In terms of an algorithm: Including the longest warning is most likely to include all the most important warnings.

Are we sure about this, or are we assuming MedLine is correct? Did you find all the Clonidine labels on fda.gov? RudolfoMD (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/ has copies of the Medication package insert submitted to the FDA for all regulated drugs (human and veterinary; does not include unregulated substances, such as herbal supplements). They have 175 entries for clonidine. Seven of the 175 are injectable. These: [1][2][3][4] have one or two boxed warnings (if two, they may be displayed in the same or separate boxes). These do not: [5][6][7], although the first in this box-less batch seems to have an incomplete or incorrectly entered label in the database, and the last two seem to have the same warning about surgical procedures as appears in the boxed warnings. The main difference is that the words aren't displayed in boxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

So does including the longest warning make sense; is anyone volunteering to manually review the warnings so we can see and handle complications like the one with Clonidine as we prepare to display them in wikipedia? RudolfoMD (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Passing by comment: can we add a picture to the Boxed warning? I've never heard of this before (I lived in the States for a decade but was never in need of any serious medication...). Skimming that article makes me wonder what that warning actually looks like? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Passing comment 2: see Talk:Boxed_warning#American_or_global?. We probably need a new article on this concept outside United States, under a more clear name like warnings in drug labels and package or safety information on drug labels (to use some phrasing from cited sources). The current article is appallingly US-centric, and the name is unclear to anyone who is not American. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

All countries have warnings. Only the US seems to have this "extra important warning" thing. The article should be US-centric – as US-centric as the Food and Drug Administration article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Tagging more Rx. Hope to continue to make progress in the new year. --RudolfoMD (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

References

move?

shouldn't KarXT be moved to something like xanomeline/trospium, similar to dextromethorphan/bupropion? thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Physiological prematurity

Unreferenced stub that has languished for ~15 years now. Can anyone add refs/verify this, or should be WP:TNT it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I added a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

William Utermohlen peer review

Feel free to leave comments for me to improve the William Utermohlen article before I take it to FAC, at Wikipedia:Peer review/William Utermohlen/archive3. Thanks, Realmaxxver (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Archie Cochrane

I've added the article about Archie Cochrane as being within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. I hope to improve the article and am open to suggestions about how it can currently be improved. John Desmond (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

did a few edits--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Asthma phenotyping and endotyping

New article on "a novel approach to asthma classification inspired by precision medicine": Asthma phenotyping and endotyping. Any comments regarding WP:MEDRS compliance and/or whether it merits a separate article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, it's probably fine. There are multiple review articles with non-overlapping lists of authors, so we have multiple independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirects to asthma types

Hi, everyone!

I have recently created the page Asthma phenotyping and endotyping which lists the now-recognised phenotypes and endotypes of asthma. Creating redirects could be helpful, as I don't think many of them deserve their own page at this time.

However, many redirects to these types already exist, and simply redirect to the Asthma page whole, e.g. Eosinophilic asthma, or only link to the Asthma#Classification page, which doesn't feature them as a classification, e.g. Atopic asthma.

Do you think something could/should be done about it?

Thanks for your time! AufbauPrinciple (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this a good redirect?

Childhood accidental spiral tibial fracture ==> Toddler's fracture

Would this be a good idea? On one hand, the article seems to distinguish the two kinds of fractures, while on the other hand, it notes that recent work has considered one a subset of the other. Since the latter is more recent, and obviously they're very similar to the layman, I'm wondering whether it should be left red (either to encourage article creation or to avoid confusion), or whether a redirect would be good, both because they're related and because we want to discourage content forking. The phrase doesn't appear in the body of any other article; its only other appearances, in Bone fracture and Crus fracture, are limited to this citation. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nyttend I personally think it's a good redirect because any effort to expand or create a page for childhood accidental spiral tibial fracture would result in a lot of overlap with Toddler's fracture.

Here is some more references that imply or state that they are synonyms: [8] [9] [10]

CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Hyperproteinemia categorization

I was expanding Hyperproteinemia (high blood protein levels) and I'm having a hard time figuring out which category it should be listed under.

It's currently listed under the catagoried Blood disorders and Blood proteins. However the ICD lists Hyperproteinemia as a metabolic disorder.[11]. Hypoproteinemia (low blood protein levels) is categorized under Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for blood.

If anyone could advise me on how to categorize this article that would be very helpful. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for blood seems best. It is a general term for abnormally high protein levels in the blood, not a "blood disorder" in the sense of leukemia, sickle cell anemia etc. Spicy (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Critique of the article on Teething

Dr. Clay Jones, a pacticing paediatrician, has recently raised concern over potential errors in the article on Teething.

Please, see the following link for details:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/from-the-vault-infant-teething-myths-and-misconceptions/ AufbauPrinciple (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Aortocaval compression syndrome Vs. Supine hypotensive syndrome

I was wondering if anyone could help clear up some confusion regarding Aortocaval compression syndrome and Supine hypotensive syndrome.

The wiki article states that "Aortocaval compression is thought to be the cause of supine hypotensive syndrome". Supine hypotensive syndrome also redirects to Aortocaval compression syndrome. However a lot of sources seem to classify them as the same disorder.[12][13][14]

I'm wondering if Aortocaval compression syndrome and Supine hypotensive syndrome should be regarded as separate entities or referred to as synonyms. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say the terms are interchangeable since even the StatPearls article intended to educate healthcare providers explicitly states that. 🙂 AufbauPrinciple (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I was leaning towards that but wanted to double check before writing the article! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Arteriosclerotic heart disease Vs. Atherosclerosis

Can anyone find a difference between Arteriosclerotic heart disease and Atherosclerosis? They seem to be referring to the same disorder but I'm not sure. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's extremely difficult to find sources in this. It seems that the term arteriosclerotic heart disease has all but gone extinct. 🤔

It seems that arteriosclerotic heart disease (ASHD) is the arteriosclerosis of the coronary arteries. Arteriosclerosis is the hardening of arteries such as can be caused by atherosclerosis; plaque buildup. It seems that ASHD is a synonym for coronary heart disease.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/atherosclerosis

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3469073 AufbauPrinciple (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Do you think it's appropriate to redirect it to coronary heart disease? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that redirecting ASHD to coronary heart disease would be entirely appropriate. 🙂 AufbauPrinciple (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Last chance to auto-count your refs for the year

If you would like to find out what your net number of refs for the whole year is, please sign up at https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023/students/overview (or leave a comment here, and I can add you). It also auto-counts the net number of words you've added/removed from WPMED-tagged articles. So far, JenOttawa is leading for content added and Ajpolino for net sources removed (we do see some really lousy sources in some articles, so this is a necessary and important activity), but if you sign up now, your whole year's worth of work will be counted, so the leaderboard could change!

You can sign up now! (If it asks you for a password or other id code, it should be qyoufwds.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Too late, it seems. RudolfoMD (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added you. It updates once every day or two, so it should catch you on the next run. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The leaderboard has changed with some editors adding themselves. I still have a button to add editors on my screen, so please post if you want to see how 2023 went for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Add me please (if it’s not too late :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I've put you on the list. Check back tomorrow to see your numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It worked. I like the idea. Thanks! --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It worked. Interesting. Good idea. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Disseminated disease Vs. Disseminated infection.

I was wondering if anyone could help me understand the concept of Disseminated disease. I can't find any resources that refer to it outside of the context of infections. I understand the basis of it however since articles only define Disseminated infections I'm having a hard time figuring out how to properly site a definition.

Another thing I noticed was that there is lots of usage of the term Disseminated infection but very little usage of the term Disseminated disease. When the term Disseminated disease is used it seems to be used as a synonym not a separate entity. Would a name change and rewrite of the article to focus on Disseminated infections be appropriate here?

Any advice or guidance is appreciated! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: I improved the article a bit but decided to leave it as is because I feel this topic is too far out of my understanding to properly write the article. Thank you to anyone who helped! If anyone is interested in expanding the article the two references I used are very extensive. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Obviously anecdotal, and there's added potential for a geographic bias, but I (a UK based coder) have seen it infrequently used within the clinical record to refer to mets (usually extensive). Little pob (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to note: there's a possibility it may have actually been "disseminated [organ/system] cancer" that I'm remembering, rather than "disseminated disease"... Little pob (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've found a couple articles in reference to cancer but typically under the name "Disseminated Cancer". I'm not sure wether to include this as it seems to be an overlap with "metastatic cancer". CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that the equivalent in non-infectious diseases is usually called Systemic disease. I looked at dozens of the books using this term, and nearly all of them were about infectious disease, especially HSV in newborns and MAC/MAI in people with HIV/AIDS.

That said, I did find a book on lymphoma that mentioned minimal disseminated disease (perhaps the pre-treatment equivalent of minimal residual disease?)[15] and a couple of others that mentioned it in the context of oncology, usually for hematological malignancies,[16][17], but not always.[18]

This vet book uses the term to describe an infection in a cat, which might be useful for an ==In animals== section (cat lovers, please be prepared for large and potentially disturbing image if you click that link). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed response it really is so helpful! Do you think it would be appropriate to use Disseminated infection as a synonym? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No. And "one can view metastatic cancer as a disseminated infection" is wrong or at least unencylopedic. Cancer isn't an infection. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I improved the article a bit but decided to leave it as is because i feel this topic is too far out of my understanding to properly write article. Thank you to anyone that helped! If anyone is interested in expanding the article the two references I used are very extensive. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have definitely come across the term in reference to malignancies in clinical settings, and a quick Internet search seems to bear this use out. TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind expanded on this? I did come across quite a few case reports of Disseminated infection in the context of malignancies due to the weakened immune system. I also found some usage of the term in the context of cancer cells spreading.[19][20] CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'm talking about cases where a malignancy that has metastasized to a large number of locations in the body is described as "disseminated disease". That is to say, the "disease" in "disseminated disease" refers to the malignancy itself in that context (and "disseminated" is roughly equivalent to "extensively metastasized" here). TompaDompa (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Tompa, do you see that language used for solid tumors? I'm not sure that anyone would describe (e.g.,) lymphoma as "metastasized", but it can be "disseminated".

Cursed, you can have a disseminated infection in the setting of disseminated malignancy. Both the infection (e.g., bacterial) and the cancer can be separately spread around the body. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, e.g. prostate cancer, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer. TompaDompa (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Physical therapy#Requested move 29 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Physical therapy#Requested move 29 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Need help on a page: Enteritis

Enteritis is an extremely high-traffic page, with over 400,000 monthly page views. It is currently in a very poor state compared to most pages with that kind of attention, and has a remarkably slow edit frequency. I've made some improvements but realistically I lack the time or expertise to bring it up to par by myself.

I need some help improving the page. It may need large-scale restructuring, maybe not. I've also had trouble finding relevant images (there was no image on the page before I added one recently) if anyone is better at finding those too.

I'm pretty new around here - are there any gastroenterology editors who we might be able to reach out to? But I encourage anyone able and interested of course Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

the treatment section seems to be tagged...Goldman, Lee; Schafer, Andrew I. (16 August 2019). Goldman-Cecil Medicine E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. chap. 267. ISBN 978-0-323-55087-1. Retrieved 9 January 2024.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cannabis and sex#Requested move 5 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cannabis and sex#Requested move 5 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Bigeminal pulse VS. Bigeminy

I was wondering if anyone could help me figure out the difference (if there is one) between Bigeminal pulse and Bigeminy. I suspect the two articles may be referring to the same disorder but I always get hesitant when pages have already been created. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Bigeminal pulse is the arterial pulse that can be felt when there is a bigeminal cardiac rhythm. Our article describes bigeminal pulse as a condition, but it is more properly classified as a sign. Bigeminy is the underlying cardiac rhythm. TompaDompa (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Quite right, but the Bigeminal pulse article is so short (and poorly referenced) that a merge is (in my view) warranted on the grounds of context. I've started a merge proposal; feel free to contribute at Talk:Bigeminy#Merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox WARNING for US

The WARNING in the infobox is not helpful or useful and it may be scary to readers. It seems premature to add it to the infobox without having more detail in each of the articles.

The infobox adds a WARNING to the beginning of the US legal status along with a "citation" that requires the reader to download some list and/or make a database query. The link fails for me with a 504 HTTP status.

"FDA-sourced list of all drugs with black box warnings (Use Download Full Results and View Query links.)". nctr-crs.fda.gov. FDA. Retrieved 22 October 2023.

The WARNING doesn't belong in the legal status section of the infobox since is part of the FDA label and is not a legal status. Articles that contain the WARNING in the infobox do not contain a discussion about the WARNING. The provided "citation" states it was retrieved in October 2023. Does that mean it is now stale and could be providing a false alarm? The placement of the WARNING in the infobox is annoying and distracting. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles about drugs with boxed warnings should contain information about black box warnings. It wouldn't make sense to remove the little hint of information we have, just because the rest of the article isn't up to normal standards. An amount of information that is small but less than ideal is better than no information at all.

A 504 error to a US federal government website is likely temporary. I can tell you that the link was working a couple of weeks ago. Also, as a practical matter, these warnings rarely change. Like anything else involving regulatory requirements for a drug, it will require a little routine maintenance to check that nothing has changed, but this is probably one editor for a couple of hours, once a year (and less, if anyone comes up with a clever way to diff last year's spreadsheet against this year's spreadsheet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Why should they contain that information? Wikipedia is not a guide (WP:NOTGUIDE) and does not give medical advice (WP:MEDICAL). The warning is US FDA specific and looks alarming. The so-called hint using a large unexplained WARNING doesn't seem appropriate. The "citation" for the WARNING is not useful. When it works, it presents a database query form that requires readers to understand the form in order to use it properly. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Alternative markings were proposed during the discussion – the least obtrusive of which were ◼︎ (a square) for the US FDA and ▼ (an inverted triangle) for the EU equivalent. These did not receive any support over the implemented WARNING. Both disclaimers were also raised and discussed by editors more competent than I, but will see if I can find the archived discussion(s). Little pob (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Original discussion as far as I'm aware: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 168#Black box warnings project. (I'm only seeing reference to WP:MEDICAL on a quick review, though.) Little pob (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Also Template talk:Infobox drug#Edit request 15 November 2023 (36 comments from 7 editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Whywhenwhohow, I'm sure you don't mean to be asking why articles about drugs should contain information about important contraindications and serious adverse effects. Every article about a drug that has earned a high-priority warning from the FDA or EU should have that fact mentioned in it because major safety issues are basically always DUE. One would not wish to leave out information, e.g., about suicide risk in SSRIs, or Depo-Provera causing osteoporosis, or celecoxib causing cardiac deaths because you can't really have a complete understanding of the subject if you aren't aware of the serious safety issues. In addition to the medical side, these warnings also have significant business effects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Glucocorticoid resistance

I'm currently working on expanding the page Glucocorticoid resistance but I'm a bit confused as to what the topic of the article should be. There seems to be two definitions of Glucocorticoid resistance, one being a well documented genetic disorder,[21] and the other being more of a vague concept.[22] I'm not sure if I should write this article from both perspectives or just focus on the genetic disorder. I've started a sandbox here for the article if anyone wants to check what I've already written on the subject.

It seems like the term has been used in many different contexts and any advice on how I should move forward is appriciated. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations on your work. It seems that the primary genetic disorder is a syndrome - i.e., a complex of various manifestations in multiple organ systems - referred to as (primary) generalized glucocorticoid resistance,[23], and is caused by defects in the human glucocorticoid receptor. The general concept of resistance to glucocorticoids[24] is indeed more vague and highly technical. Therefore, it is worth considering renaming the article Generalized GC resistance, and only cover this specific disease. NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I think renaming it is the best course of action and I'll finish up my article in the sandbox, then switch the name! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Another idea is, since the various non-congenital types of glucocorticoid resistance too are mediated by the Glucocorticoid receptor, to expand on them in the article on the aforementioned protein.NikosGouliaros (talk) NikosGouliaros (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This publication/review treats all GR resistances in one go, if that's useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hyperthyroid misinformation in Eliot Coleman article

The Eliot Coleman article (author of winter gardening methods) has a large paragraph on hyperthyroidism which likely contains WP:MEDRS violations since it is based on a book written by Coleman's daughter about her recollection of his hyperthyroidism from her childhood, and potentially supported by a Spanish paper (which I cannot access or read). It looks like it is suggesting dietary advice to remedy Graves' disease. I am not familiar enough to evaluate this, but I see zero discussion of diet in the rather long and comprehensive-looking Graves' disease article. Perhaps someone from this wikiproject can assess the matter.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, @Grorp. While iodine problems can be caused by dietary factors, and thus reversed by fixing those dietary factors, that's not what the cited source actually says. His thyroid problems were solved by conventional medical treatment, not dietary changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I like what you did to the article's paragraph.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Antacid, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

How do we welcome new medical editors?

Should we welcome them with edit war that almost violates 3RR (correction and apologies: there were 3 reverts, but needs a fourth to constitute a violation, but I still think WP:BITE, WP:WikiBullying and WP:PRESERVE apply; and per WP:3RR, “ The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times”) and bite them with warnings and potential WikiBullying?

Perhaps someone needs to consider self-reverting. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) edited 12:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 to your points, behaviour and tone towards new contributors is very often needlessly harsh.

That said, at least notifying @Zefr of this post seems appropriate. MaligneRange (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a Frontiers journal, and I suspect that "the script highlighted it as possibly bad" is all the thought that went into this. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources doesn't mention it, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 says that it needs case-by-case consideration, not shoot-on-sight edit warring. The journal is indexed in MEDLINE and Index Medicus.[25] Scopus says it's a mid-tier journal.[26] It's therefore probably a reliable source, according to the criteria put forward in question #8 in the FAQ about how to do case-by-case evaluations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

While I am no fan of Wikipedia being used for class exercises I agree that interaction is poor and reflects negatively on Wikipedia and our hope to continue as a project with new editors.

Three things strike me. This revert claims in the edit summary that "'smart drug' term and other claims are not supported by a WP:MEDRS review". We don't need a MEDRS review to say that certain drugs are being labelled "smart drugs" by students or the press or whatever nor to say "its use is increasing, especially among students". The removed text said "The reasons for using the drug Modafinil are due to better concentration, neuro-improvement, stress reduction, time optimization, reduction of fatigue, reduction of daytime sleepiness and curiosity" and the source says "The most frequent reasons for using smart drugs were: better concentration, neuro enhancement, stress reduction, time optimization, increased wake time, increased free time, and curiosity". So there's a plagiarism issues here that we see almost inevitably from students who aren't being monitored or taught properly by their teacher. But the key is the text is sourced and not itself incorrect: these are reasons students give. It likely needs more carefully worded to not give any impression that Wikipedia agrees with those reasons or thinks they are scientifically confirmed. The linked article is indeed a medical review paper, so I'd very much expect a beginner to think it was just fine. Instead the editors is told it isn't a MEDRS review and on their user page pointed at Wikipedia:CITEWATCH. Quite how any beginner is supposed to make sense of a table for bots I don't know but in big bold letters at the start it says this page "does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them". Personally I find this "You cited a predatory journal" reason-why-I'm-justified-in-edit-warring-with-you to be a bit of a clever-dick landmine issue for this project. It is nearly impossible for most editors to figure this stuff out, but get it wrong and you'll be threatened with a block (as here) for trying to restore your apparently MEDRS compliant text which keeps getting removed by some know-it-all vandal.

Secondly I find it offensive that the editor's imperfect prose has led to him to being told to go edit on Turkish Wikipedia. "Comments made by students on this talk page indicate your knowledge of English grammar is poor. There is a Wikipedia in Turkish. Please edit there, not here". This is repeated on the user's talk page. And in among all the ranting about predatory journals, the student is lectured on punctuation and citation sequencing, as though this is something that matters on your first article edit. This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Literacy (and numeracy) skills have been notably lacking in some well known WPMED members over the years and I don't recall anyone telling them to go edit somewhere else for those reasons.

Thirdly the student is told "It seems odd to me ..that graduate students are permitted to do their first encyclopedia editing on a medical topic (this requires expertise)" The main problem over the years with student editing has been (a) undergraduate students doing a 101 course who, well, know nothing about their subject, obviously, and are attempting to write effectively textbook level prose on said subject and (b) courses where the teacher has only just mastered putting three 's together to make bold text. I would love if Wikipedia got edits from graduates as this one, a "molecular biology master degree student". I wonder what kind of "expertise" is "required" to edit Wikipedia's biomedical articles? Would my first aid badge do? This elitism is killing the project.

-- Colin°^Talk 14:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your wise comment, Colin. That really helps :) I agree that the interaction reflects negatively on Wikipedia and our hope to continue as a project with new editors. I think more than one user is affected. That probably affects the whole class. On the Neuroenhancement talk page new users are told that they don’t have “permission” from Wiki Education Foundation to edit. And many others who have edited the article have their edits reverted. I’ve just posted welcome messages on some of those new users’ talk pages. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC); 18:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

AIUI the Wiki Edu Foundation only supports classes in the US and maybe Canada, so they wouldn't be supporting a class in Turkey. Someone like Justinianus could tell us whether m:WMTR supports university classes, but in general, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and that includes students just as much as anyone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

To clarify... This is indeed "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit" but the important word is "can". Not "made to" or "paid to". Once you go beyond voluntary participation, the usual contract with the community breaks down. We had a very very few wise lecturers years ago who understood this and ensured the students were aware of the toes they might step on, but they were exceptions. The fault with any of this is the teachers, not the students, and frustrations with unprepared students being made to edit Wikipedia should be laid at their door. We were all new once and I would guess that 99.999% of the world population think a "predatory journal" is one on big cats or sharks. -- Colin°^Talk 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Dipygus

The page for Dipygus is currently lacking citations and classified as a stub. I was going to expand it but I'm questioning whether it needs its own article or whether is should be merged to Caudal duplication.

This article[27] sates that "Dipygus is a complete caudal duplication deformity in its severest form." Based off this article and other reports it seems to be a variation of caudal duplication and not its own separate entity.

Orphanet,[28] GARD, [29] and MONDO[30] all list it under synonyms for Caudal duplication.

I'm interested in others thoughts on the matter are. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Support the idea of a merge for short text and context, even if not duplication of scope. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Of note, the ICD-11 code listed on Orphanet is not the same as when you type it into the browser: LD2F.1Y (Orphanet) vs LD2G (code returned on search). Little pob (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. I will redirect and add Dipygus under the classification for Caudal duplication. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

JAMA now available in The Wikipedia Library

This is just a quick note to let you know that if you qualify for access to The Wikipedia Library you can now access The Journal of the American Medical Association for free! Simply click Access Collection under the JAMA entry or head directly to this URL. Let me know if you have any questions. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic news. Thank you for letting us know! Ajpolino (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Tumor Cells Communicate”

Hello, is the text on “Brain Tumor” under “Tumor Cells Communicate” OK or not, OK? Wname1 (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)