Jump to content

Talk:Alzheimer's disease

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleAlzheimer's disease is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 21, 2008.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 12, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
August 14, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 10, 2010.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 15, 2011, July 15, 2012, July 15, 2014, July 15, 2015, July 15, 2017, and July 15, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article

Wiki Education assignment: Perception

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eg2619 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: PowdersPOWPOW.

— Assignment last updated by Isamelia6 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I previously edited this article for a course (also affiliated with Wiki Education) and have been keeping tabs on it as much as I could. At the time, I learned that we should avoid using documents such as the DSM to avoid copyright strikes. I noticed that after some edits to this article, the DSM itself is directly cited over a scientific review article discussing it (specifically in the Diagnosis (criteria) section). I wanted to ask about whether we could remove it, or if my understanding was incorrect. I am still learning so I hope this question isn't too bothersome! Thank you in advance! Bharatss-SB (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source [12] - Life span

[edit]

Broken link. Voxit (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting, I've fixed it by replacing the original reference with some newer and more precise ones. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Brain rot has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21 § Brain rot until a consensus is reached. Based5290 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amyloid beta theory under scrutiny

[edit]

Should the article be updated to reflect the doubts about the amyloid beta plaque theory? The paper on which that theory is based is under investigation for fraud now. Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease 2A02:A449:F9AB:0:D0DE:BAA9:81BC:728A (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As described in Sylvain Lesné#Impact on Alzheimer's research, the consensus seems to be that the alleged manipulation would not invalidate most of the research into the amyloid hypothesis. But since the report and the consequences have garnered significant attention from researchers as well as the general public, it would perhaps be a good improvement to mention it briefly in the history section. What do you think @SandyGeorgia? (pinging you since you wrote most of the content covering this investigation). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping ... I agree with Bendeguz Acs that the sources indicate the alleged manipulation has little impact on most research, hence is not worthy of mention in the main article. As to whether it warrants a mention in the History section, my approach (particularly for a former featured article) is to include only that which has been covered by secondary overall literature reviews -- the Lesne/Ashe issue has not risen to that level yet. Since this article has fallen from FA status, I won't strenuously object if it is added to History, but the standard I prefer is to base History on mention in overall literature reviews of the condition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Bendegúz Ács considering this update from Piller (and the changes I just made at Sylvain Lesné), it seems there is some disagreement as to whether the findings cast doubt upon the prevailing amyloid hypothesis. Considering this is the most highly cited paper ever retracted, perhaps a one- or two- sentence summary at Biochemistry_of_Alzheimer's_disease#Amyloid_hypothesis is warranted? I'm out of time for today, and although I did (partially) update Lesné, I haven't yet updated Karen Ashe, in case you have time to work there -- I am going to be fairly busy through Friday. Thanks for keeping up with this! I still don't find it necessary to make changes to this article, as we don't overplay the amyloid hypothesis here, and it is covered in detail at the Biochemistry of article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been busy, but I saw you made edits in both of those pages, I've reviewed them and they're great! I agree that Biochemistry_of_Alzheimer's_disease#Amyloid_hypothesis is a good place to mention the retraction now. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]