Talk:Amphetamine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Featured article Amphetamine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 3, 2015.
Toolbox

Too complicated[edit]

This article could really use some significant simplification of language.

Had placed the effects in the lead before a discussion of which neurotransmitters it effects in an effort to make the beginning easier to understand and relevant to the general population.[1]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed "therapeutic doses" to "treatment doses" which is what it means in non technical terminology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with simplifying the language in amphetamine's lead and I agree that simpler/more accessible language should be used instead of technical terminology in the lead of any article, however, "treatment doses" sounds very odd to me (I've never heard/read that phrase before), which is why I changed it back to therapeutic.
I understand your desire to move the effects paragraph up, but I honestly think it's a bit weird to talk about that before the paragraph on pharmaceuticals/pharmacology due to how that paragraph is written (past-present coverage of amphetamine drugs, then pharmacological effect) and relates to the end of the preceding/first paragraph and beginning of the next/third one. It was initially written in that order to relate the pharmacological effect to its therapeutic effect, although the text doesn't directly relate the two effects anymore due to the change in wording that you introduced. I still think it's more logical to leave it in this order though since the 1st paragraph ends with historical indications and its current status as a pharmaceutical drug and the 2nd starts by mentioning historical amph pharmacueticals (Benzedrine-branded products).
Is it really that big of an issue to have the clinical effects listed in the 3rd lead paragraph instead of the 2nd? I don't mind rephrasing the lead paragraphs in order to cover these effects in the 2nd paragraph while still making it read/flow well overall as long as there's a good reason to do this. Seppi333 (Insert ) 12:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tweaking the pharmaceuticals table for Adzenys (and Dyanavel)[edit]

  1. In the table Adzenys XR should probably be listed as an ODT (orally disintegrating tablet), a significant distinction.
  2. Adzenys XR is not a 3:1 (D:L) ratio of salts because Adzenys is not composed of salts. The drug is never described as salts but the doses are measured of base amphetamine. It is a a 3:1 ratio of base. The confusion occurs because Adzenys XR is considered (functionally) bioequivalent to Adderall XR. (Why would Neos elect or be permitted to measure dose units of base?)
  3. Pharmaceuticals composed of bases (Adzenys XR and Dyanavel XR) might list ratios in brackets—perhaps noted in the header: (D:L) ratio of salts [base]—or something similar to accommodate them.
  4. We can list a USAN for Adzenys XR. IMO the table's USAN should probably be amphetamine and dextroamphetamine because of the D>L ratio; the same for Dyanavel XR. But USANC seems to consider any mix of enantiomers to be amphetamine, so this should be used.
Box73 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Good catch. Guess I didn't really read the Rx info that carefully since I didn't notice it wasn't a salt-based formulation. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The listing of (salts), (base), (pro-drug) is reasonable. I hedged on that because outside Adderall it makes no difference. Thanks for tweaking the "recently". Re the "Marketing start date" I added the "(listed brand)" because of the ambiguity. Dextroamphetamine sulfate IR tabs were obviously introduced before 2013, yet is is likewise misleading to imply Zenzedi was first marketed in 1937 (circa). It is further complicated by amphetamine sulfate tabs with the gap in availability. Should we list the intro date for Benzedrine sulfate tabs or Evekeo? How do you think this should be handled?
Re above I go with "therapeutic dose" too. I'll comment above a bit later. — Box73 (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the marketing start date with the initial approval date. The marketing start date refers to the date the brand was first marketed with FDA-approval, while the approval date applies to the drug product. The approval date is the same as the marketing start date for the brand that was marketed when the drug product was first approved. The FDA lists the marketing start date of every approved brand on its website. In any event, the marketing start date should be listed in one of the refs at the end of the row for every brand in that table. Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
There is only one problem, which is unique: Zenzedi. It was first marketed in a field of existing generics, which were introduced before Dexedrine and Dextrstat (IR tablets) were discontinued. There is nothing new about Zenzedi but using its date is misleading. Consider, if this were 2012, Dexedrine and Dextrostat were discontinued but before Zenzedi, how would this be handled? I would guess Dexedrine and its intro marketing date would be listed. (This is different than Benzedrine/Evekeo which was not continuous with no preexisting generic.) In our case the marketing start date should not represent the current (Zenzedi) brand but the Dexedrine IR brand marketing start date, IMO. — Box73 (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't really follow you when you say Zenzedi's marketing start date is misleading. Why does this brand have anything to do with the marketing of Dexedrine or Dextrostat? Seppi333 (Insert ) 13:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Goodman & Gilman's textbook[edit]

@Garzfoth: I noticed that you wanted to go through and WP:V the text cited by this ref, based upon your edit summary from special:diff/720255246/720433631. I hosted a lot of paywalled refs on my google site a while ago. The Goodman & Gilman's ref is hosted here. The highlighted sentences in that reference support the statements that are cited by that ref in this article.

In case you care to check any others, most of the other paywalled refs that are cited in this article are hosted on this webpage. The file names on that page correspond to the reference name defined in quotes in the source code, as in: <ref name="file name">{{citation template goes here}}</ref>.
The named reference for the Goodman & Gilman's textbook was defined as "Westfall" in the source code (i.e., <ref name="Westfall">), so the ref is hosted on the google page under that file name. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Thanks, you just saved me quite a bit of time.
I still have access to almost all paywalled refs through my university but that access will be expiring in under a month as I am on leave from university right now so I'll need to figure something out until I return to academic studies and regain access to paywalled refs.... I have a ridiculous number of studies saved locally, but that's not enough and I'll probably just look into requesting access to a few journals via the wiki library. Your site will help, thank you for informing me about it! Garzfoth (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. The only reason they're hosted there is for facilitating WP:V. Face-tongue.svg Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Neural damage in animals[edit]

@Seppi333: The second sentence of the medical section says this:

Long-term amphetamine exposure in some animal species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage

Should this be qualified with "at some doses" or "sufficiently high doses"? And isn't "can" a more concise and direct, and less definite (doesn't imply 100% reliability), way of phrasing "is known to"? Exercisephys (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I never bothered to qualify it because the dose (therapeutic vs binge) that produces neurotoxicity in animals depends on the animal (e.g., rats/mice/rhesus monkeys). That said, the phrase "at sufficiently high doses" seems fine. I'd prefer to use the wording "has been shown to..." here as opposed to "can" since it suggests that there's documented and unequivocal evidence of an effect as opposed to a hypothetical undocumented effect based upon pharmacodynamics (i.e., amphetamine can be neurotoxic to humans at very high doses at least partially due to increased oxidative stress, but to date this assertion has not actually been documented in case reports). Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amphetamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Selective transclusion source markup[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

@Pppery: I realize that you mean well with your recent edits, but these have introduced a lot of paragraph whitespaces, additions of intentionally omitted/noincluded content (mainly hatnotes and some content in the OD section), and missing sections in the target articles (2 in the Adderall article). The LST method of transclusion isn't better or worse than the non-labeled method (as described in WP:SELTRANS) which this article uses. They're completely interchangeable methods of selective transclusion, so I don't really see the benefit of converting the source markup to the LST method. Frietjes also attempted to convert the current selective transclusion markup to LST a while back, but ended up introducing transclusion errors as well.

I'm going to go ahead and revert the markup back to the non-labeled transclusion version since this produces the same section transclusions as the LST method after correcting the current errors. Seppi333 (Insert ) 15:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333: And, in doing your revert to the other method of selective transclusion, you also reverted my other change in that block of edits, moving the {{when pagename is}} to the transcluding pages. I have reinstated it.Pppery (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't feel particularly strongly about keeping those statements here, so that seems fine. They were only included on this page to have the entire section for each article located in a centralized location, since it's easier to edit 1 page instead of 4. There is another one of those templates on this page ({{if pagename}}), but it won't be possible to move that one to the transcluded article due to its location. Seppi333 (Insert ) 16:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
(in reply to the initial post) @Seppi333: There are multiple reasons I think that the LST method is better for selective transclusions. First of all, the <onlyinclude> method introduces potentially confusing template and parser function syntax into the wikicode of an article, where as the LST <section begin=name />...<section end=name /> looks much clearer and in some cases (where the {{#section-h}} parser function can be used) isn't even necessary. Secondly, if you forget to specify which section to include (or didn't know that selective transclusion was being used in the first place) (resulting in {{Amphetamine}}, it is counterintuitive to have all of the selectively transcludable material shown without any kind of break. Using LST in this case would result in the entire article being shown, as one would expect when transcluding something.
Thirdly, the non-LST method is explicitly described in WP:SELTRANS as being more complicated. (quoted text below)

The following subsections are about a more complicated way to make selective transclusion without using the extension.

Pppery (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The advantages of one method over another are fairly trivial, since coding for noinclude/onlyinclude/page-specific text transclusions just involves different markup with each method. The method of transclusion that is used in this article is really not that complicated - anyone who has written a few templates before has probably encountered all of the components that are necessary for creating the selective transclusion (i.e., parametrization, onlyinclude, and the ifeq parser function). An editor that isn't familiar with selective transclusion markup probably won't understand what they're looking at with LST markup either though. The non-LST method treats an article exactly like a template, allowing for parametrization that is unrelated to the selective transclusion. Even so, there are (somewhat more cumbersome) workarounds when using the LST method, like {{if pagename}} templates. I agree that it's probably easier for editors who are unfamiliar with templates to create selective transclusions with the LST method though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Seppi333: The thing is though, that articles are not templates and thus should not behave like they are templates. The second part of your comment - Anyone who has written a few templates before ... is irrelevant, as there is probably of group of people who have not written templates and would not understand the non-LST method. On the other hand, the general meaning of <section> tags should be clear enough to anyone who has the word Section (typography) in their vocabulary.
You also seem to have ignored my argument about not specifying a section. Pppery (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
If I wasn't familiar with LST syntax prior to seeing <section begin=name />...<section end=name /> in an article, I literally would think that it was either erroneous, deprecated, or redundant syntax with the section header markup for demarcating a section with that title.
There's no policy on WP that says I can't treat an article like a template, as there's nothing sacred about the template namespace. If I believe that using an article as a template may provide a benefit over creating an independent template, I will generally transclude an article. E.g., the FOSB template you made has just 2 people watchlisting it - you and me. If someone vandalizes it, we are now the only individuals who are likely to respond. If that table were left at FOSB, it would have all the page watchers of that article to serve this purpose.
Lastly, I didn't see your point about the section; if someone doesn't know what they're doing, they use the talk page. If they don't specify a section, they will see a full article transclusion, realize they don't know what they're doing, and should then head to the talk page. It's literally the same thing if someone were to bork the LST syntax - suppose a newbie editor unwittingly uses template markup instead of HTML when demarcating the section transclusion. What then? (Talk page) Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Seppi333:On the topic of treating articles as templates, it's much clearer to me to see the code {{FOSB addiction table}} compared to {{:FOSB}}. The former clearly is some sort of table related to FOSB, where as the lattter example, transcluding an article, gives no indication of what is being transcluded. Your third sentence about template vandalism is also false - recent changes patrollers will catch most vandalism - and to them it doesn't matter whether the vandalism goes to an article or to a template. Pppery (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Ah, yes, you're quite right. Page patrollers will always catch more IP vandal edits. This is clearly a universal truth/tautology, like in the related addiction template {{addiction glossary}} which has 3 watchlister reverts vs 2 page patrollers who never edited the page before [2]. Oh wait. That was a counterexample. And it's a good one for demonstrating you're wrong about the significance of watchlisters too because the number of watchlisters is really small on that page. Anyway, this thread is so off-topic by now that it's not worth keeping an open discussion under the heading.
In a nutshell, this page is not converting to LST on a whim. It would require a consensus and there clearly is none here. Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

To do[edit]

  1. Create a switch statement for parametrized alignment (left/center/right) within a nested table for {{Psychostimulant addiction}}, {{Amphetamine pharmacodynamics}}, {{Amphetamine pharmacokinetics}}, and {{Catecholamine and trace amine biosynthesis}} (Note to self: this syntax can't be added directly to this article because it will bork the selective transclusions; it has to be added to the templates).
  2. Check for new literature reviews on amphetamine that were published since July 2016.

Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


Switch statement options for table alignment
  • Left: style="float: left;"
  • Center: style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border: none;"
  • Right: style="float: right;"