User talk:N24Guy/sandbox

Lack of contrasting scientific viewpoints and objective assessment of disorder in article

ChonkersMcFreely (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)The article on the whole seems quite biased and appears to lack objective discussion on DSPD and its classification as such by a scientific consensus. I do not mean to contend the opposite but rather point out that it is not possible to make a proper determination of the validity of the article's claims as it seems to make the assumption that the disorder's existence as such is self evident. As a result, the article is largely dedicated to describing the difficulties with which individuals experiencing the symptoms of the disorder adjust to every day life, and possible rejection of them by other individuals.

This is evident in the following paragraph:

Patients suffering from SWSD disability should be encouraged to accept the fact that they suffer from a permanent disability, and that their quality of life can only be improved if they are willing to undergo rehabilitation. It is imperative that physicians recognize the medical condition of SWSD disability in their patients and bring it to the notice of the public institutions responsible for vocational and social rehabilitation.

Sentences such as the following:

As DSPD is so little-known and so misunderstood, peer support may be important for information, self-acceptance, and future research studies.

additionally give the impression that what is lacking with respect to the disorder is not peer review or increased study from scientific communities, but rather societal attitudes in regards to people experiencing symptoms described as indicators of the disorder in question.

@Wagner Johns::

We have scientific consensus about existence of DSPD:

• International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Revised (ICSD-R, 2001),
• ICD-10, section G47.2 "Disorders of the sleep-wake schedule"
• One of the latest review about it

What "contrasting scientific viewpoints and objective assessment" would you like to see in the article?

@ChonkersMcFreely:

It's a bit hard to pin down. But let me try to describe it in terms of what sticks out to me as a reader, and incidentally someone who relates to those symptoms being described. Going into the article, I get the immediate sense that this disorder is so strongly verified by researchers that there is no reason to dedicate an entire section to summarizing the major talking points surrounding its initial classification and validity. For example, is there any criticism of the exact nature of the current classification, or any conflicting views on the approaches taken to diagnose the disorder, or branching views on any of its facets? Perhaps it's just the phrasing that's throwing me off. The article feels like it's written more to the point of advocating social change in light of the disorder, than to inform readers of its verifiability. Again I must point out - I'm not putting into question that there isn't a scientific consensus. My point was that it doesn't come across that way in this article. Without visiting the citations and doing my own reading outside of Wikipedia, I feel like I'm getting a skewed picture of the subject.

I find this to be an odd objection. When I read a Wikipedia article on a medical disorder I am generally seeking the medical facts about the disorder, not "contrasting scientific viewpoints". Why would you expect those here? If I look up, say, influenza, I am not bothered that there is no contrasting viewpoint on the scientific facts on respiratory viruses. What contrasting viewpoints on this disorder were you expecting to find?

You state:

"...the article is largely dedicated to describing the difficulties with which individuals experiencing the symptoms of the disorder adjust to every day life, and possible rejection of them by other individuals."

Let's look at the facts. The word count of the article is around 4,444 words (leaving out references). The first 3057 words (69.5% of the article) deal with the biological mechanism, diagnosis, management and prognosis of the disorder. Only after you get over 2/3 through the article are there two small sections (total 630 words or 14.2% of the article) that contain the two quotes you cite that deal with the impact on patients and their adaptation to everyday life. This is then followed by another 727 words (16.3%) dealing with objective data on comorbidity and epidemiology.

To say an article is "largely dedicated" to the topic of two sentences in a small section (14% of the article) buried way down the page, is, franky, objectively wrong.

You say the article is lacking "objective assessment of [the] disorder" it is shows a "lack objective discussion on DSPD and its classification as such by a scientific consensus." But there are lengthy sections of the article dealing with those exact points including a very detailed description of the classification of the disorder under ICSD-3, The International Classification of Sleep Disorders. So I find your objection puzzling. The article includes 59 references, mostly to peer-reviewed journals and standard reference texts. How much more objective scientific information do you need? Again, your objection seems not to match the facts of the article.

Regarding the two sentences you chose as examples. The first paragraph is a quote from Prof. Yaron Dagan, MD, PhD of the Chronobiology Research Center, University of Haifa, one of the leading experts on circadian disorders. Perhaps the formatting did not make clear that this was a direct quote? He is giving his expert analysis of how patients, physicians and agencies involved in rehabilitation should deal with this condition. I don't see why that is inappropriate.

The other example sentence says "As DSPD is so little-known and so misunderstood, peer support may be important for information, self-acceptance, and future research studies." Are you looking for a contrasting view that peer support is not needed? You seem to read a lot into that sentence that isn't there or is opposite of what is said. You say it implies that increased scientific study is not needed, but "future research studies" are mentioned right there.

I would point out that many Wikipedia articles on medical conditions mention stigma or lack of understanding as problems patients face, for example the articles on depression, AIDS, epilepsy, and leprosy, to name a few. Does it negate the science pf AIDs to mention the social stigma patients face?

Continuing to address your concerns, you state, "Going into the article, I get the immediate sense that this disorder is so strongly verified by researchers that there is no reason to dedicate an entire section to summarizing the major talking points surrounding its initial classification and validity."

This is a very strange objection. The reason you get the sense that the disorder is strongly verified by researchers is that it *is* strongly verified by researchers. Why does that bother you? Do you have some evidence it is not verified? Do you read an article on influenza and think it is a problem that it gives the impression that the disorder is strongly verified by researchers and that there is no discussion of the "major talking points" about its initial classification and validity? The article on flu does not have a section on whether it is a valid disease or the influence of evil spirits. What is it about DSPD that causes you to have these concerns?

The validity of this disorder is not controversial in the medical community. Its validity has been accepted for decades. It was first discovered at Cornell, followed by extensive early studies at NIH and later, Harvard, Brown and many other institutions . It has been listed in all the major diagnostic classifications since before 1990. It is listed in the IDC-10 (International Classification of Diseases), the ICSD-3 (International Classification of Sleep Disorders). the DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association). It is recognized by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. It has a chapter in the standard 1800 page textbook of sleep disorders (Kryger, Roth and Dement, Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine, 6th edition). And I would point out that if you object to this article, that textbook also does not discuss the "major talking points" about its validity, since that would be pointless. No medical expert and no medical organization has any doubt of its validity as a disorder.

All of this is based on sound, peer-reviewed mainstream, non-controversial science. There may be public misunderstanding of the disorder (as mentioned in the article) but the science is clear.

Some aspects of the disorder are understood down to the molecular level. For example in some cases it runs in some families and has been traced to a specific mutation of a specific protein (CRY1). We know the mechanism of the circadian clock on the molecular level and we know how this mutation disrupts that. This is solid hard science. Not much room to question the validity of a disorder when you can show that changing a single base pair of DNA can cause it.

But most of this was covered, with references in the Wikpedia article and yet you question it based on some minor discussion of the impact on patients etc. But despite all the evidence in the article you doubt the science because of something you "feel".

With all due respect I don't think that is enough. If you are making the claim that there is a "Lack of contrasting scientific viewpoints and objective assessment of disorder in article" then I think you have an obligation to provide evidence that there is in fact a contrasting scientific viewpoint that is being ignored. If you can find a legitimate reference in the literature to such a viewpoint, by all means add it to the article. If you can't find such a reference then I think you should drop this objection.

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by N24Guy (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)