Talk:Epilepsy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Epilepsy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 14, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
January 26, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Epilepsy (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Epilepsy is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of epilepsy and epileptic seizures on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Translation / Neurology / Psychiatry (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Autism (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Epilepsy is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Disability (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Epilepsy is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Disease or disorder?[edit]

Should we (Wikipedia) list epilepsy as a disease or a disorder. I support disease because of the ILAE definition and because it only takes 5 minutes (sometimes less) for the disease to kill you. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 23:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I view the two terms as more or less the same and happy with either you wish to use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer disease because epilepsy is serious. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 19:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer "disorder" because epilepsy can be (and frequently is) caused by physical brain damage. Usually the word disease connotes a condition caused by biological, genetic, or idiopathic factors. This is not always the case, but for example if you google for "define:disease", you get: "a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury". Looie496 (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand that. Well, Wikipedia seems to be big on medical consensus and the ILAE considers epilepsy to be a disease. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 19:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Does the ILAE consider anything to be a "disorder"? Do they say something like "it's a disease, not a disorder"? Or is that just the word that they happen to use? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In the definition, epilepsy is now called a disease, rather than a disorder. This was a decision of the executive committee of the ILAE, taken because the word "disorder," while perhaps having less stigma than does "disease," also does not express the degree of seriousness that epilepsy deserves.

— From the article
@WhatamIdoing: Yes, it does. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 15:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome. :) Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 16:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Title Section "nearly 80% of cases occur in developing countries“ is somewhat misleading[edit]

The statement of epilepsy "nearly 80% of cases occur in developing countries" is misleading. It does not say how many people are in development and developed countries respectively. For example, if there were 100 people in all developing countries in the world, 4 of whom had epilepsy, and there were 2 people in all developed countries in the world, one of whom had epilepsy, that would be "80% of epilepsy cases occur in developing countries". That is ridiculous!

The correct method, I think, is to compare the percentage of people who have epilepsy among all people between developed countries and developing countries. For example, "In developed countries, 8 out of 1000 people have epilepsy, where as in developing countries, the ratio is 11 out of 1000". Some new references are needed for this.

All numbers are only for demonstration. They are not actual numbers.

183.173.61.207 (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's misleading. You seem to have assumed that it implies something about a difference in prevalence rates between developing and developed countries. Instead, I believe that it merely notes that most people with epilepsy aren't in wealthy countries.
Approximately 80% of people live in developing countries. The exact numbers depend upon exactly which countries are counted, but the WHO currently gives 5.9 billion people in developing countries and 1.2 billion in developed countries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Scholarpedia as a source[edit]

Not sure scholarpedia is a sufficient source for

"The cause of seizures is largely unknown except for types of epilepsies like reflex epilepsies. The predictive changes in the EEG before a seizure and the methods to detect seizures may vary by patient. Recent studies have increased understanding seizure generation in humans. In both temporal lobe and neocortical epilepsies, high-frequency oscillations were discovered to have a function in the start of epileptiform activity and seizures. In patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, the intracranial EEG signal responded more strongly to electrical stimulation as the brain neared a seizure. Studies on animal models of epilepsy and computational models have helped to understand the dynamic processes possibly involved in seizure generation. A better understanding of seizure generation and the complex spatiotemporal interactions between different brain regions for each type of epilepsy may improve the design of improved prediction methods and algorithms.[1]"
  1. ^ "Seizure prediction - Scholarpedia". www.scholarpedia.org. Retrieved 2016-01-10. 

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe Scholarpedia is a secondary review source. Article Author info: Florian Mormann MD, PhD http://www.cnl.ucla.edu/florian_mormann2.htm for the article: Seizure Prediction Florian Mormann (2008), Scholarpedia, 3(10):5770. doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.5770

From Scholarpedia: "Scholarpedia is a peer-reviewed ..encyclopedia written and maintained by scholarly experts... Scholarpedia is inspired by Wikipedia and aims to complement it by providing in-depth scholarly treatments of academic topics... Scholarpedia does not aim to publish original "research" or "position" papers. The focus..is.."living reviews"..by current and future generations of experts. Upon approval, articles in Scholarpedia are archived in a journal (ISSN 1941-6016). They can thus be cited as any other peer-reviewed article." http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:About. --CuriousMind01 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

[1] would not be in line with the MEDRS sources we usually use, be it a position statement, review article, or textbook, I think it would be better not to use as a source...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Scholarpedia I believe fits the Wikipedia:MEDRS criteria and could be a new source to usually use. "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, ...or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, ...."
As an example, the text from the Scholarpedia Seizure prediction article summarizes recent studies listed in the article. "A number of recent studies have attempted to increase our understanding of the dynamics of seizure generation in humans. In both temporal lobe and neocortical epilepsies, high-frequency oscillations were found to play a role in the initiation of epileptiform activity and seizures (Bragin et al. 1999, Worrell et al. 2004, Schiff et al. 2000, Bragin et al. 2002, Jirsch et al. 2006, Worrell et al. 2008). In another study on patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, the intracranial EEG signal was found to respond more strongly to electrical stimulation as the brain approached a seizure (Kalitzin et al. 2005). Remarkably, this study used active external perturbation of ongoing EEG activity rather than passive extraction of features from spontaneous EEG signals to detect impending seizures. In addition to empirical studies on seizure dynamics in humans (Franaszczuk et al. 1994, Jouny et al. 2007, Bartolomei et al. 2004, Schiff et al. 2005, Schindler et al. 2007) studies on animal models of epilepsy (McCormick and Contreras 2001, Avoli et al. 2002; Jefferys 2003; Beck and Yaari 2008) as well as computational models (Wendling et al. 2003, 2005, Suffczynski et al. 2005, Feldt et al 2007, Lytton 2008) have helped to gain insight into the dynamical processes potentially involved in seizure generation." --CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess the question is dose scholarpedia have a reputation of publishing accurate content? It is not pubmed indexed is it? I am not seeing it as well respected in the academic community at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Scholarpedia articles are not PubMed Indexed in general, I only found 2 Scholarpedia articles in PubMed. I don't know its reputation in academia. The Scholarpedia approach is a leading expert writes an article, which is peer-reviewed (anonomously) and an expert approves revisions.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(undent) There is no need to rely on Scholarpedia for an article such as this. There is a wealth of good secondary sources available in the regular core journals. It might be suitable for niche rare conditions that have not been written up properly in the core literature or textbooks. JFW | T@lk 15:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the editors think is best. I did not find a good review of Epilepsy Seizure prediction research reviews, there are subsets like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3233702/ Seizure Prediction: Methods; but not a comprehensive one. There may be. I was using the Scholarpedia article as the comprehensive review of the current state of the subject of Epilepsy Seizure prediction research.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's not really covered in the literature, then this subject may not be WP:DUE, even if it's 100% verifiable (and true as well). I looked through a handful of sources via WP:Annual Reviews just now, and the research focus seems to be squarely on genetics (for better or worse). You might be able to trace some of the sources in that Scholarpedia article, to see whether they're cited in more recent reviews. The Scholarpedia article hasn't been updated for several years, but you could look at some of the more recent general ones, such as Snyder 2008 or Andrzejak 2009 or Mormann 2007. Presumably a good review article would cite at least some of these same sources as the Scholarpedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, FYI, Mormann wrote the Scholarpedia review article Seizure detection in 2008, the article has been updated as of 2012, and Mormann includes the 3 articles you mentioned, and others studies, to create the Scholarpedia article.--CuriousMind01 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The Scholarpedia article looks like a legitimate secondary/tertiary source, suitable for Wikipedia's referencing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I found Mormann et al did write a seizure prediction review article in 2007 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17008335, but Mormann's Scholarpedia review article is more current as of 2012.CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the text to the article based on the 2007 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17008335 by Murmann et al. The added text is almost the same as Murmann' Scholarpedia article, minus the studies on animal models, which Murmann reviewed in his Scholarpedia article as of 2012.
Open question: Are Scholarpedia articles adequate as references for Wikipedia medicine articles?
Is there a consensus?
Note: there are only a few Scholarpedia related medicine articles today, in the Scholarpedia Computational Neuroscience section. CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

This text was added

This source contains the text "In both temporal lobe and neocortical epilepsies, high-frequency oscillations were found to play a role in the initiation of epileptiform activity and seizures. In another study on patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, the intracranial EEG signal was found to respond more strongly to electrical stimulation as the brain approached a seizure (Kalitzin et al. 2005). A better understanding of the mechanisms of seizure generation that takes into consideration the complex spatiotemporal interactions between different brain regions for different types of epilepsy may eventually stimulate the design of improved prediction methods and algorithms."[2] and the source is CC BY SA NC

While this source states "A better understanding of the mechanisms of ictogenesis that takes into consideration the complex spatiotemporal interactions between different brain regions for different types of epilepsy may eventually stimulate the design of improved methods and algorithms."[3] which appears to be fully copyrighted.

This is not paraphrased enough and it is unclear if the Scolarpedia article is okay from a copyright perspective. Likely it is as it states the authors still own the copyright but only one is listed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The article in Brain however is an okay source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)