Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.


List of archives

Edit with the Visual Editor

Defining/relaying the concept of "woman" at the Woman article[edit]

Rod of asclepius.jpg

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Woman#Proposed edits to lede. A permalink for it is here. The topic concerns this project due to the biological and health aspects, such as sex differences in medicine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A related RfC has commenced: Talk:Woman#RfC: Article lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Comprehensive open release of fully identifiable medical data and biomedical hackathons[edit]

Unarchived thread

This link is about a collaborative biomedical research event hosted by a nonprofit called Silicon Valley Artificial Intelligence: https://sv.ai/undiagnosed-1

That webpage covers a research case involving a specific patient – who happens to be my brother – that signed an open data release of virtually all of his medical records (>200 pages of documents), proteomic data, metabolomic data, and genomic data (i.e., his sequenced exome and hybrid second/third-generation sequencing of his entire genome) for the purpose of permitting ~200 researchers from across the globe (e.g., USA, Canada, UK, India, Japan) access to his medical data during a hackathon in which they attempted to identify the biomolecular basis of his condition using statistical and data science (AI and machine learning) methods.

My brother isn't at all concerned about his privacy, so there was no attempt to deidentify his medical data or even hide his identity from the public (e.g., his first name, medical history, and face are all included on that webpage and all over SVAI's twitter feed); going to the event to collaborate with researchers by answering questions sort of obviates the point in doing that. One of the recommendations from that event was for his family members (e.g., me) to have their whole exomes and/or genomes sequenced and included in the analysis; so, I too am going to end up openly releasing identifiable genomic and metabolomic data and possibly a few medical records as well.

I'm bringing this up here since I have a couple questions.

  • Biomedical research hackathons are relatively common events and many (including the one for my brother) are conducted in collaboration with the NIH; these seem to generate a lot of news coverage, but I can't seem to find anything more than a passing mention of these on Wikipedia. The only tangentially relevant article about these that I found was Big Data to Knowledge (@BlueRasberry: I saw you created that). Aren't these sufficiently notable events to merit coverage somewhere?
  • This isn't the first time that identifiable medical data has been released by a patient on this scale into an open research database (e.g., SVAI's previous patient did this: "Paseman is adamant. “What I want to do is tell people who have rare, terminal, untreatable diseases is HIPAA is not really a big deal. We’re almost dead anyway, who cares? Let’s come up with a way to release all this information out there so people can use it.”). I know that a large database of fully identifiable biomedical data (e.g., pan-omics data, medical records, and images) could be used to do a lot of high-impact clinical research as well as other interesting genetics research (e.g., images of people paired with their sequenced genomes could be used to analyze how genetic variation accounts for differences in body/facial structure). Does anyone know of an initiative to create such a database? Found https://pgp.med.harvard.edu/participate - that’s exactly what I had in mind, but 400 whole genomes is a tiny database. There are ~300000 SRA-indexed human WGS.
  • I'm curious to know if anyone is aware of another hackathon or research event like this that attempted to "diagnose" (i.e., identify the pathophysiology of) a patient with an undiagnosed rare and presumably unclassified disease before; couldn't seem to find one from googling. Given the amount of time and resources involved, I can't imagine these would be common. This approach to diagnosis – and any other type of patient-centered hackathon for that matter – really takes the idea of precision medicine to another level. It blows my mind that all of that concerted effort was just the first round of work on a molecular diagnosis.

Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Am not aware of any other events. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've never heard of this before, and have never heard of an even like it. But it's wild. Do you see a path for Wikipedia to fit in? Ian Furst (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2019
Hmm. Not really, although I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to float the idea by them. Seppi333 (Insert ) 00:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this connected to the Undiagnosed Diseases Network? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No, they operate on recommendations and patient applications. The only point of contact they have with the broader undiagnosed/rare disease community is my brother, who has an extensive network and is a very outspoken advocate for them. The way that he and SVAI met was by recommendation of the two people listed in the acknowledgements section of [1]; John already had whole exome and short-read whole genome sequencing and was looking for a research sponsor for PacBio long-read WGS, which is very expensive. SVAI was looking for someone who had a challenging/complex case history, was connected to a patient community, wanted to help organize more research for that disease category, and was willing to open source their data. My brother agreed to open source and SVAI agreed to finance the sequencing, but they ended up getting my brother 7 new or updated test instruments, including a better short-read sequence and two types of long-reads (PacBio and Oxford Nanopore), worth about $20000 in total.
The UDN was a dead end when my brother approached them several years ago. Seppi333 (Insert ) 12:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────My brother was talking at length at that hackathon about what he thought was the best approach to molecular diagnostics for rare disease patients individually and in aggregate; apparently he stuck a chord with a lot of people. The Indian woman who led the team from MedGenome contacted my brother and offered to provide him $6000 of free short-read scRNA-Seq on samples from various tissues (i.e., multiple transcriptome sequences). This morning, a researcher from Stanford's Undiagnosed program who participated in the hackathon offered to onboard him there, generate a few more long-read instruments and run algorithms on them, and then run the validation tests that were mentioned at the hackathon as well as validation tests on what their new algorithms implicate; apparently, all of that testing will be free as well.

@WhatamIdoing: Some of the researchers at the event were talking to my brother about the possibility that it might be Marfan, but the clinical phenotype and genetic variant didn't seem to fit.

@Ian Furst and Evolution and evolvability: Following up on what Ian asked above, would the Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Medicine accept primary research submissions pertaining to various applications of AI, bioinformatics, biostatistics, and computational biology to genomics and/or molecular diagnostics? https://f1000research.com/ sponsored SVAI's recent event, so they promoted publishing team research in that open access journal. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I realize that the current editorial staff might not have the technical background to referee submissions involving AI, machine learning, and/or bioinformatics (hackathons involve the formation of collaborative cross-functional teams of individuals with differing domain knowledge/expertise, who then work together to create software for a particular purpose); assuming they're interested and the subject matter isn't an issue for the journal, I'm sure someone from that group would be willing to help review submissions as an associate editor. Seppi333 (Insert ) 06:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Out of my expertise, but maybe User:Ozzie10aaaa can comment. Ian Furst (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe the best individual(by far) to ask would be Evolution and evolvability(as Seppi indicated by his ping)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


Moved from User talk:Seppi333: Moved the thread here to centralize the discussion. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seppi - I'm so sorry to have missed the post you made at WT:MED/Archive_124. I wanted to just add a quick note here that I think something like what you're talking about could very well be published through WikiJMed. There are some editors at WikiJSci (especially User:Jacknunn (link) who could advise on considerations and format, and help out in gathering suitable peer reviewers. Depending on exactly what description and analyses are being done, it could be a series of small publications, or a single publication that goes through multiple versions as new parts are added (versioning like a textbook, or extending with addenda). Let me know if you're still interested in the idea. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Hey there; sorry about the late reply. I haven't been active on WP much lately due to a loss of interest in editing; subsequent to the discussions at WT:MOSMED and elsewhere, I don't really feel like my work here has much of an impact. Anyway, I'm still open to the idea. I spoke to my brother about it; I'm going to speak to SVAI's founder over the phone and sell the idea to him sometime this week. I'm fairly confident that he'll be amenable to the idea of working with WJM as a publisher of articles related to the hackathons they host for a couple of reasons, but the main ones are that WJM is an open access journal (NB: SVAI is strongly pro-open knowledge and open-data) and, by comparison to their current journal partner, has much lower publication costs (i.e., no costs with WJM vs $250–1000 per article with their current publisher, depending on the length); hence, they don't have to sponsor the publication fees for their attendees if they work with WJM as their publisher. That said, I'd like to be able to offer an objective comparison when I talk to him, so what would you say are the other benefits and drawbacks of publishing primary research articles in WJM vs this journal (F1000 research)? I wouldn't expect an influx of submissions following their events if SVAI opts to work with WJM since few (if any) research groups at biomedical hackathons actually opt to publish their research. Seppi333 (Insert ) 17:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: Figured I'd ping you on this page since I moved the discussion here. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Thanks for the ping. That sounds reasonable. Below are what I think the most relevant aspects of WikiJMed would be for this sort of research article.
Benefits:
  • No processing fees
  • Flexible format
    • no max/min length (can publish very short or very long publications, or ones with unusual wordcount:figure ratios)
    • versioned updates (can update or expand an article with new data after being re-checked by peer review again)
    • experimental formats (if it can be sensibly peer reviewed, we can publish it, e.g. single diagrams or annotated datasets)
  • Intends to implement contributor recognition system that includes people outside the traditional author list (e.g. patients and other stakeholders)
Drawbacks:
  • Not in pubmed (yet)
  • No official impact factor (yet)
  • Articles written in wikimarkup (drawback or benefit depending on your opinion of VisualEditor for newcomers)
I suspect that things like turnaround time and handling of large supplementary datasets are probably similar between WikiJMed and F1000 for original research articles. We've not had call to use it yet, though may be publishing the first minor update to an article in WikiJSci soon as a test case. Also pinging Jacknunn as knowledgeable on research involvement and engagement. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
That’s very helpful, thanks. Face-smile.svg I’m certain that the SVAI wouldn’t allow anyone to publish a patient’s raw omics datasets or medical records; while it’s technically open source (for the purpose of circumventing HIPAA restrictions that preclude collaborative research involving a patient’s medical data), their patients’ omics data and medical records are actually siloed in their cloud and they limit data access to researchers whom they’ve vetted and participants at their hackathons. Privacy isn’t actually why they do that; rather, it’s done to prevent identity theft (medical records contain a lot of sensitive non-medical data too). Seppi333 (Insert ) 09:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Still pending. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Greg Marchand (surgeon)[edit]

Posting the notice here because it may be more appropriate than at the science reference desk where it was discussed (thread). —PaleoNeonate – 00:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a hoax - he does seem to be a doctor who invented a technique and published some papers about it - but the article is promotional and refbomby. I didn't look through all the references but all of the papers I spot checked were written by the guy himself, which means they're not independent coverage. I'm not too familiar with the notability guidelines on academics so I'll leave the decision to someone else, but my first instinct is that this should go to AfD. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I have very strong COI/paid concerns partly for reasons I won't go in to. I've asked the editor for clarification. I'll give the editor a short time to respond n a satisfactory fashion and post them on COIN if not. Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
We have different brand new accounts promoting him across 5 languages. We need an SPI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the cross wiki aspect along with the questionable recent 'translation' of Mariela Garriga . I didn't notice this wasn't even the first time it had been attempted. Given that, I've opened the COIN thread here WP:COIN#Likely cross wiki paid editing farm. Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow! A zillion things have happened since I dropped the query at the reference desk. The power of the community at work, I suppose. I am not surprised, since it raised a number of red flags even to a novice like me-- A perfect article on surface, on a subject that would require expertise to assess, without an edit history, dropped to mainspace by a very new user, with a misleading summary. I found the threads at COIN, AfD, the archived AfD and the editor's talk page. Is there an SPI too? Can I see it, or is it private between noms and defenders? Thanks to everyone who looked in on it and got involved. Looks like I'll learn a lot for having decided not to just skip over this one, without asking anyone. Usedtobecool ✉️  07:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Linear no-threshold model[edit]

Does Linear no-threshold model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) fall within the scope of WP:MEDRS? I have been reading some sources and I wonder whether we want all these individual studies as they seem to be not MEDRS compliant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say that, yes, much of that article falls within MEDRS. That said, this is not a context where traditional RCTs are possible, so we should interpret MEDRS with care taking into account the sort of science possible and considered of high quality. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
It would be good to keep the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) advice in mind. MEDRS's ideal (which is not a minimum requirement) is often not appropriate for questions that stray too far from questions such as "Does this treatment work?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health[edit]

Given this mid importance articles medical and culture/society/psychology scope, would greatly appreciate any further comments at its peer review. I've worked on it a lot and got it to GA, User:Doc James and User:Casliber have given invaluable comments so far. I'm aiming for a Wikijournal submission and FA status towards the end of the year.

Peer review here! --[E.3][chat2][me]

the article is well written, GA should be enough forWikipedia:WikiJournal_article_nominations...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Paracoccidioidomycosis[edit]

Anyone interested in collaborating for this fascinating condition to get to GA status and then submit to WJ of Med? Currently C class with my edits last week. Thx --[E.3][chat2][me] 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

E.3 I made some minor edits, some of them could be off-base, so please revert as you see fit (no offense will be taken). As being new to WP, and as non-clinician, you should look carefully at my edits. My only suggestion would be that some of the terminology is a bit thick. Waughd (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#RfC:_How_should_those_with_the_condition_be_referred?[edit]

Being discussed again. Further input requested. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

PMID/PMC issues fixed[edit]

For those of you making use of automated tools like User:Citation bot and the ref toolbar, the technical issues with the NIH databases have been resolved (see T226088) and these tools should work again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Wonderful to hear. It being broken was really annoying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Plasma half-life and plasma stability[edit]

On the german wikipedia, there is a discussion about plasma half-life and plasma-stability. In general it helps to read the more detailed english article on wikipedia. In this case maybe not - do I see it corrently that there are no articles for this? If not, I really suggest to establish it. On german wikipedia, currently I try to make clear that there is an important difference between plasma half-life and plasma-stability, see [2]. As I understand international literature correctly, also in english it is common to distinguish both terms. Actually my intension was to mention that plasma half-life (Plasmahalbwertszeit) is a missleading term for the phenomen that is described with that. But obviously, it's the same missleading in english ^^ So it should be termed something like half-life (pharmacology), but at least in german that's not possible because "plasma half-life" is the missleading, but established term. Maybe you find a well-considered solution for an english article (or section in blood plasma). --Max schwalbe (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There's biological half-life, if it's any help? Little pob (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh thanks, that's a well solution, because the term plasma half-life is avoided in this article, mostly. Great! But also there is no explaination to distinguish plasma half life from plasma stability. I`ll try to improve it, please take an eye on it because I'm not an english native speaker, thanks! --Max schwalbe (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Max schwalbe, you had only a minor grammar error, which I fixed. I also re-phrased some of the introduction. Would you please look at it, and fix any possible factual errors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Indeed, how to use "-ly" correctly, I still do not fully understand. I have made some additional changes ... --Max schwalbe (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Aber wir sagen, Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache. 😸 (But we say that German is the difficult language.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
German to learn might be a bit more complex than to learn english. But, I was such a bad pupil in english lessons so I'm even happy to be able to tell something in english that could be possibly understood, sorry ^^ --Max schwalbe (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

AD research article needs attention[edit]

More detail at Talk:Alzheimer's_disease_research#Grossly_out_of_date. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes stuff like this quickly goes out of date. Not sure the solution unless someone is very interested in the subject. Much easier to keep up to date on the very very few that actually make it into clinical use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that WP and especially WikiProject Medicine wants secondary sources (and I fully support that), it could be very difficult to have an up-to-date page on current research of a well-funded (and highly researched subject). I would even go so far as to suggest the page should be deleted, as it would be hard imagine that anyone would benefit from the (outdated) information provided, and the page seems to attract COI folks. Waughd (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I should add that I'm not really suggesting the page be deleted. Waughd (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
A description at a "higher" (read: vaguer) level might be more resistant to going out of date than a list of molecules currently in clinical trials. There's research about diagnosis, research about causes, research about pathogenesis, research about drugs to stop it, and hopefully research about managing it (weight maintenance, symptom control, caregiver burnout, etc.). That has presumably been true for the last decade and will presumably be true for the next decade, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the point of us hosting outdated science information. I think these types of articles are just asking for trouble. To me it seems that the solution is to keep articles like Alzheimer's disease research, if they exist, to a society- and culture-focused type of article that discusses the history, funding, and expert opinion on the field itself. The current science-based research directions should go in the parent article itself under that section. I went ahead and wp:boldly redirected the article, for what it's worth. Biosthmors 14:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that the page has been deleted (redirected) but doesn't appear to be consensus to take such a drastic measure (see Waughd comment above "I should add that I'm not really suggesting the page be deleted"). If the research page is deleted, then someone should at least carefully review the existing content and carry over the good parts to the main Alzheimer's article. The main article should then discuss some of the prelinical research, especially since numerous efforts at Amyloid targeting are not working. Fpbear (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

Resolved

Boraas, Alan (September 2, 2006). "Hometown kid an Internet revolutionary". Anchorage Daily News.

References

I am unable to find a free copy of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The URL indicates that it's an Opinion piece, and the title indicates that it's about a BLP. Does this have anything to do with a medicine-related article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, I found it in the wayback machine.[3] Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
On my computer that site does not work. I will try later. QuackGuru (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I was able to read it. QuackGuru (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Urolagnia talk page.[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Urolagnia#Survey. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


Merger proposal for Physical examination and General medical examination[edit]

Auscultation of a man

The article general medical examination is a duplicate of physical examination, although it contains some good material that should be incorporated into the latter article. I'm proposing to merge the two pages. Please share your thoughts at the talk page. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicotine-related RfCs[edit]

Marketing of electronic cigarettes[edit]

See Talk:Marketing_of_electronic_cigarettes#Proposal_to_redirect. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette[edit]

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safer_than_tobacco_claim. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Electric smoking system[edit]

See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Proposed_rename_of_article.

Most of the RfCs have expired or are close to expiring. If anyone is still interested they can comment. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about a photograph depicting an intersex person[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Main Page#Graphic but educational image of intersex person on main page? about the publication, on the Main Page, of a photograph depicting an intersex person. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Commented. Bondegezou (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, the question is whether editors choose to have the Wikipedia:Picture of the day (i.e., not the thumbnail for a Featured Article) on Intersex Awareness Day (which is in October 2019) be an 1860 photograph of an intersex person's pelvic region. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Differences of sexual development at WP:Redirects for discussion[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Differences of sexual development. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Authoritative sources for Toilet training[edit]

Working on this article, and as you may expect, there is just a bottomless pit of faddish parenting books that I'm trying to avoid at all costs. I'm currently using the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Paediatric Society as authorities on specific techniques. I'd like to have other recommendations by similar national/multi-national professional organizations, but I'm not sure where to look. Ideas? GMGtalk 16:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There's this from the NHS in the UK. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

An interesting look at cases were recent RCT/meta analysis came to differing conclusion from traditional practice[edit]

interesting info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Osteopathy[edit]

I have reverted some changes there, but would be grateful if other editors could audit. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography of Ebola[edit]

Ebola Virus TEM

Feedback on this please, particularly what should be included and what WHO publications are appropriate. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Inherently non-encyclopedic, I'd say. WP:NOT. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Would be of use as this, this etc. A number of the entries have 2nd/3rd party references. @Ozzie10aaaa: and @Doc James: for advice please. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
What is the goal / use case? And why is simple the reference section of the article on Ebola not this already? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Bibliographies don't need to be justified in that way - see all the others that exist. Even if they did, a full bibliography on any topic is inevitably going to include useful material that appears in no article and is organised in a completely different way. See the examples given above. They prevent readers having to trawl through articles for sources which are not organised in the refs section by topic. I must admit I was hoping for more constructive replies. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Other bibliographies exist, as you note, so I don't see an issue. I say feel free to work on it. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
By which reasoning, for any article X, we can have an article Bibliography of X. I think policy argues against editors deciding on what constitutes a bibliography for any topic. Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I see what you're saying. I did find this, which should help. It appears that as long as secondary sources provide further reading lists, then we too can provide one (as a bibliography). Biosthmors (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting! So by WP:NOTESAL a topical bibliography would be okay if there were decent sources discussing that topical bibliography. Are there such sources covering the idea of "Ebola bibliography"? Alexbrn (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
They don't have to be in one single published bibliography per the policy, they can be "recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic" so the further reading in one reliable source supports the other and vice versa over many publications. That's the corpus of the bibliography where no single stand alone book has yet been published. Bibliographies as hardcopy single purpose books may be dead now due to the internet so increasingly we will have to rely on multiple sources to establish the body of work in a particular area. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I will have a think and do some research....thanks all. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Pathology Outlines?[edit]

Pathology Outlines is a site that provides overviews of many pathology related topics - here's an example entry: [5] The articles are written by MDs and they cite their sources, but I'm not sure if it would be considered a good source under WP:MEDRS, so I'm hesitant to cite it. Thoughts? Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a great source. What were you wanting to use it for? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I was going to use it to cite this sentence: "Abnormal promyelocytes with multiple Auer rods, called faggot cells, occur in acute promyelocytic leukemia" in this article. Thanks for your input. I can definitely find a better source for the statement if required. I just found it convenient because it popped up on Google - easier than digging through textbooks :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears generally reliable to me based upon it having people in academic positions on an editorial board of 17 and editor-in-chief that is an established author. The source states that "All topics are reviewed by multiple Pathologists before final approval". That said, I'm unaware of any reputation (good or bad) the source may have developed. Biosthmors (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm highly skeptical of this. I suspect it's an advertising play (either for CME, backlinks, or straight advertising). There's a whole page dedicated to 'testimonials' about the site?? No references for the info provided. Worse than primary publication imo. The author may have put little or no effort into sourcing the facts, even if it went thru others for a check. Ian Furst (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Since the consensus seems to be that the source is questionable at best, I've removed it from my draft and replaced it with a better source. Thanks for the help. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)