Talk:Neurofibromatosis type I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology / Medical genetics / Neurology (Rated Start-class, Low-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dermatology task force (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Neurofibromatosis type I:

Strike through when completed

  • clarify NF1 / NF-1 terminology and usage relating to neurofibromin
  • disambiguate neurofibromin (as NF1) when neurofibromin article exists
  • link OMIM 162200 in infobox
  • format references for footnotes style
  • external links
  • simplify medical terminology

Incidence[edit]

I've read the incidence rate in UK is 1/2500, so it's possible who ever wrote that number is from the UK.


Does anyone have a citation? I see 1/2500 births on wikipedia, but have encountered estimates between 1/3000 and 1/4000 births on NF websites and in printed handbooks. I can expect a range of values (high uncertainty), but there's too large a differenece between 1/2500 and 1/4000, no?

Above posted by User:128.151.253.249 19:36, 18 January 2006

I agree - 1/3000-1/3500 is the accepted figure as far as I know (as an NF1 researcher).

This is also listed as the rate on the Neurofibromatosis page.

Above posted by User:Aarons@chw.edu.au 09:33, 8 May 2006

However, I have done significant research on Neurofibromatosis as well, and it seems journal articles range from 1/3500 to 1/4500. Though I am comfortable in using 1/3500 since it seems to be the figure used in the most recent medical literature. --Jonisabassist (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If the writer has switched to using numbers instead of rates, I think you'll find it should be "... at least 1 million people in the US ...." 86.181.106.147 (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation & protein[edit]

"NF1" needs a disambiguation page as it is an abbreviation for both the disease and a causitive protein. Not sure how to construct such a page myself . . . Niels Olson 04:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put an {{otheruses}} template linking to NF1 (protein) as listed in OMIM 162200, rather than creating a disambiguation page, as I don't think there are many other uses of NF1, but if there are, a disambig page can easily be created. --apers0n 05:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm not a big fan of creating links to unmade pages. I'd say start making a page yourself, then add the link.
The protein encoded for by the NF1 gene is called "neurofibromin", not "NF1 (protein). Any page on the protein should be named neurofibromin.
Neurofibromin is a protein that has proposed to have multiple functions, but it is likely that its Ras-GTPase activity is the most functionally important. A family possessing a point mutation that specifically ablates Ras-GTPase function demostrate all the symptoms of NF1. Dr Aaron 05:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Pathophysiology of NF1. JFW | T@lk 15:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Might as well be Greek to most of us[edit]

I know that genetic diseases are complex stuff, but c'mon guys, this reads like a Med School Textbook. Can't we break it down a little to give us less medically inclined readers some idea about what's going on in this article? Seary6579 12:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there first needs to be a more complete article to then put into "plain English." It's missing a ton of info that other disorders that are 10-20 times less common get spelled out in fine detail. It'll just take time. I'll see what I can do. Artsygeek (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million.

Seary6579 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

NF1 is so messed up...[edit]

This could happen if your child has NF1, that could happen if your child has NF1, but watch for___ if your child has NF1! My Daughter has it, and we are dealing with it. Just be sure to take them to a Dr. for a full check up at least once a year. It also effects their moods and behavior, there is more to worry about than bumps on their skin, and cafe' au lait spots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.114.250 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


This is a Neurofibromatosis type 1 specific page:

Here are a few more formatting issues that must be fixed include-

NF1 or NF-1 is an acronym for Neurofibromatosis type 1, it is vital that we are consistent with how this is formatted. This is an NF-1 specific page, why is there a section on NF-2??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonisabassist (talkcontribs) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

citation[edit]

the citation at the end of the "genetics" section needs to be fixed, and the "citation needed" tag removed. I don't know how to do that. anon 08:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.197.64 (talk)

gene function[edit]

Actually, NF-1 regulates a GAP (GTP-ase activating protein) that regulates RAS by dephosphorylating the GTP which is bound to RAS, thus deactivating the RAS protein. When I can source this, I will try to make it back here to change the article. Mba123 (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

cancer[edit]

i say that someone should remove "shown to occasionally cause cancer" in the first section. it's malignancy rate is mentioned later in the article. it's like 8%. that's not "Occasional".. that's close to rare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.140.5 (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

This article does not have enough reliable sources to support all of the factual claims in it. While it's not necessary to provide a named reference for every single sentence, it should name at least one reference for each section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cafe au lait spots[edit]

This article states that NF2 is associated with Cafe au Lait spots, but all the medical texts I can find refer to NF1 being linked to these spots - does this need correcting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjdc3 (talkcontribs) 10:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Diagnostic criteria[edit]

The article mentions seven cardinal features, but then has nine dots points underneath. This doesn't make sense. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Treatment[edit]

Someone along the line majorly collapsed the treatment section into a single vague paragraph. I will try to reconstruct. This kind of radical editing should be discussed, not unilateral. Erxnmedia (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)