Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

    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

    Eating meat reduces depression

    [edit]

    A 2021 meta-analysis assessed the association between meat consumption and depression and anxiety. It reviewed 20 studies, encompassing 171,802 participants (157,778 meat consumers and 13,259 abstainers). It found that meat consumers exhibited lower levels of depression compared to meat abstainers, with similar patterns observed specifically against vegans for depression; sex did not moderate these relations.The higher-quality studies examined demonstrated the association more strongly. Findings for anxiety were not statistically significant.[1]

    References

    1. ^ Dobersek, Urska; Teel, Kelsey; Altmeyer, Sydney; Adkins, Joshua; Wy, Gabrielle; Peak, Jackson (2023-07-26). "Meat and mental health: A meta-analysis of meat consumption, depression, and anxiety". Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 63 (19): 3556–3573. doi:10.1080/10408398.2021.1974336. PMID 34612096.

    Added here. What do editors well-versed with MEDRS think of this source and the associated content? - Hipal (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahem:
    Disclosure statement
    UD, SA, JA, and GW have previously received funding from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
    To be fair, the conclusion does state that the current body of evidence preludes temporal and causal inferences, and none should be inferred, which basically amounts to 'correlation does not imply causation'. Either way, it is a poor source to be cited for anything suggesting favoring meat consumption for better mental health.
    I suppose I should state for the record that I'm vegetarian, though I've never been paid by Big Lentil to subvert Wikipedia's NPOV policies etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, source is okay but WP:MEDSAY needs to be observed and to avoid any implication of causation I'd include from the source that this is explicitly only an association. Probably could be stated in one sentence. Bon courage (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To highlight the MEDSAY problem: If we're going to include this at all, it should sound something like: "People who eat meat are somewhat less likely to be depressed than people who don't, though there is no evidence that not eating meat causes depression."
    All that stuff about "A 2021 meta-analysis" and "reviewed 20 studies, encompassing 171,802 participants (157,778 meat consumers and 13,259 abstainers)" is a clear violation of MEDSAY. Wikipedia is not a textbook trying to teach people how to evaluate research papers or an opportunity to hype a study (such a fancy article type! so many participants!). Either the conclusion is WP:DUE in an article, or it's not, but the study details are inappropriate unless the subject of the Wikipedia article is the study itself (e.g., many of the articles in Category:Epidemiological study projects). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did the study control for the fact that this could be explained by nutritional factors such as iron deficiency that people eating meat would be statistically less likely to have. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel dueness should really correlate with effect size and or population.
    The metastudy is a large population but the effect size is pathetic. It really is undue. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Veg Historian:, who removed it entirely. --Hipal (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We have had a lot of old discussions about this going back to 2020 in relation to red meat and saturated fat on various talk-pages. Over the years there has been agreement not to cite anything by Beef Checkoff/National Cattlemen’s Beef Association because of industry funding. We know that industry funding is notoriously bad in this topic area. Whenever you go looking, a positive health outcome for red meat is always industry funded by a beef or pork company. It's a shame that this is the case.
    I do not think anyone would dispute that iron levels are strongly associated with depression and that red meat consumption boosts ferritin and hemoglobin levels. It doesn't surprise me that red meat eaters are reported to have less depression but if content like this is to be added it should be from a neutral source, not one heavily industry funded. Veg Historian (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But WP:MEDRS says editors cannot take funding into consideration when assessing an otherwise high-quality source. We would need some RS calling this particular source (or at least the field) into question. Bon courage (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEDRS says no such thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the bit "Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review." Bon courage (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So where exactly is the lower primary source in this? I can't see anything naming one, never mind suggesting that one should be taken into consideration. You seem to be trying to expand the scope of the guideline beyond what it actually says. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't always like it, but that's how it's always been applied IME and I think that affords protection against POV-pushing. I don't think the MEDRS authors anticipated a case where there wasn't a competing source. If we're saying there's an implication here that personal objections to aspects of a high-level source may be used to exclude that source outright, that would be something new, and potentially problematic, given previous attempts to exclude sources on the basis of what editors say is a "COI" (pharmaceutical research funded by the pharmaceutical industry). If we are saying that, MEDRS should be clarified.
    In general while undisclosed COI in sources is a problem the working assumption is that properly disclosed potential COI (as here) has been accounted for as part of the peer-review/publication process when published in a reputable journal. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition is MEDLINE-indexed, in Index medicus, and highly-ranked in its field. Usually dodgy papers attract some post-publication peer review e.g. from PubPeer but I'm seeing nothing for this one. Bon courage (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead author Urska Dobersek is heavily industry funded. A year previous to authoring that review she authored another in the same journal and in the review it said "Disclosure: “No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)." [1] This was false because the lead author also received a $10,555 grant from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association which was not disclosed. This is mentioned here by Marion Nestle [2] and checks out [3]. If there is a consensus to cite this review from Urska Dobersek we should mention that the authors have received funding from Beef Checkoff. Veg Historian (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's important because it removes us from the realm of "personal objections" and gives some documentary basis to question the source. Bon courage (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) If a guideline says 'don't do this in specific circumstances' I'd think that it was safe to assume that it doesn't mean 'don't do this at all'. Otherwise, why lay down the specific circumstances? Anyway, that's what the guideline says. Feel free to propose a change to WP:MEDRS if you like, but for now, you can't cite it for something it doesn't say. Ad I'd appreciate it if you kept straw man arguments out of this. Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing generally are clear enough regarding the need for independence, and WP:RS says the following regarding WP:MEDRS specifically: It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, independent, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. 'Independent' is clearly open to question here, and as far as accurately reflect[ing] current medical knowledge goes, this is a single review. If 'current medical knowledge' reflects it, it shouldn't be hard to find a less problematic source. Assuming that anyone considers evidence of a weakish correlation with nothing to indicate any causality is worth doing research intro. We are under no obligation to cite every review ever published, even in the best of sources, and it seem clear enough that regardless of what the paper actually says, readers are being encouraged to assume some sort of causal relationship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll draft a query at WT:MEDRS because what we have is odd, as in effect it might mean we can consider these 'personal objections' disallowed only if another weaker source is on the table, but: take one source off the table then all holds are off.
    The "straw man" is important because we don't want unintended consequences from WP:PAGs at at time when the "scientists have a conflict of interest with science" idea is on the rise.
    If we wanted another source to say the same sort of thing then PMID:37996851 cites an earlier Dobersek paper to say

    Most studies have shown that vegetarians and vegans are more likely to develop MDD [26]. According to the MR analysis by Chen et al., eating beef and grains may reduce the risk of developing MDD, whereas eating non-oily fish may increase the risk [27]. An RCT is required to confirm the relationship between carbohydrate intake and MDD.

    But overall I think it's persuasive to say that reporting a mere correlation is undue, particularly because it is impossible to write on Wikipedia about such correlations without it being taken to mean something about causation, as the title of this thread evidences. (My personal view is that much/most 'nutrition' research is borderline pseudoscience and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia, but WP:RGW means this is irrelevant). Bon courage (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That explicitly goes against WP:NIS and WP:COISOURCES. Katzrockso (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How can one "go against" an essay? In any case I don't think anybody is claiming this source is not the product of an independent peer-review process? Bon courage (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AIUI most of the good research into the health effects of vegan diets in developed countries is on members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (the largest group of long-term vegans in the US). One of the things I'd look at, when considering such a source, is whether this is consistent with research involving that prior work. I'd do this firstly because of WP:DUE reasons (who cares if one paper finds this result, if several others don't?) and secondly because of the potential for important methodological differences (e.g., clinical research vs internet surveys). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have any high quality sources for how likely vegetarians and vegans are to have a "balanced" diet? I know there's a known correlation between people with eating disorders being more likely to choose restrictive diets and that demographic tends to struggle with their health more broadly. I think one of the biggest issues with industry funded research is methodology and framing. Depending on how this research is presented, people could interpret it as "eating meat is an easy way to meet my nutritional needs and reduce my risk of depression" vs "being vegetarian inherently increases my risk for depression no matter what I do". I think we'd want to avoid giving readers the latter impression. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's why Seventh-Day Adventists have been sought out by researchers. They have religious rules about being vegetarian, so they're a mix of fairly ordinary people who mostly grew up thinking that vegetarian diets were just normal, rather than self-selected people who are specially choosing to do something 'extreme'. This should also be the case for other religious/cultural groups, especially in India, where something like a quarter to a third of people claim to be vegetarians. If you have religious restrictions on meat consumption and are a fairly ordinary person, you/your family would probably find a way to have a balanced diet that's compatible with your religious rules, rather than a possibly orthorexia-type diet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Still watching? Then kindly mosie on over to § Secondary source reporting on a single primary source below, for another helping of red meat, where feedback would be appreciated.) Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Heart

    [edit]

    Heart has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there an article on this topic?

    [edit]

    This source doesn't make it clear what the problem is called other than FRRS1L.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    We have no article on the gene FRRS1L or on the disorder caused by loss of function mutations to FRRS1L. The gene is notable enough to make an article, and the disorder could be described in the article on the gene. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow that article did not come up when I searched. I may have made a mistake.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No mistake, I ended up just making the article. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Secondary source reporting on a single primary source

    [edit]

     Courtesy link: Red meat § Health effects (paragraph 3)

    A 2025 paper in Neurology on dietary red meat consumption by Li, Gu, et al. reports a correlation between red meat and dementia from their 4-decade study (N=133,000), not previously recorded afaik. In this edit at Red meat, new user Surftacular (talk · contribs) added 'dementia' in WikiVoice to a list of increased risks from diets high in red and processed meats citing this study (using a dead bareurl, but which is undoubtedly Li, Gu, et al. (2025)). I reverted, citing WP:PRIMARY and linking MEDRS, and left them this notice. I believe they took the message to heart, and reinserted the content, citing secondary source Harvard Health Publishing news brief Harvard scientists: Red meat tied to increased dementia risk. But this source reports solely on Li, Gu (2025), and is candid about what can, and cannot be said about the risk, stating: "The study was observational and can't prove causation. However, the connection is plausible, since <bunch of reasons>".

    Can we use this news brief at Red meat, and what can we say in the article? On the pro side, we have a long, longitudinal study with large number of participants, and a secondary source; and con: the secondary source neither quotes nor mentions any other related study, so hardly a review; it's not quite a press release, but it focuses entirely on one, primary study. Finally. in articles like Dementia, I might feel more comfortable with terms like 'tied to', 'associated with', 'correlated' assuming the readership has a medrs clue, but in an article like Red meat I worry that such terms won't register, and the takeaway from the content will be, "Red meat causes dementia." (P.S. at the moment, I am not primarily concerned about the in-line, bare-url external link in place of a citation; I'll explain that to them later.)

    I am also wondering about the more general question of which this is an example, namely: Is an ostensibly secondary source reporting on a single primary source, in the manner of a news item sufficient to meet the bar of MEDRS? I would guess no. Your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This source cannot be used on Wikipedia because it is a single prospective cohort study and is thus a primary source and not considered a reliable secondary source for biomedical content. I do not think we can cite a news release either. If we are going to cite findings from epidemiological studies on nutrition, the bar of evidence needs to be higher and it should be from a reliable non-food industry funded meta-analysis or systematic review from a reputable journal. Veg Historian (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a primary study, but also that Harvard link is not WP:MEDRS secondary. It would need to be a review or something similar, but instead it's just a non-independent press-release by the university where the study came from. Seems like a standard case of wait until the primary source is mentioned by a review. KoA (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest avoiding the question entirely. Have a look at these:
    and see if you can use those review articles instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, all. Surftacular, hope you're watching, editor WhatamIdoing found sources for you that look very promising. Mathglot (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Two of those were published in MDPI journals [4], [5]. As far as I know in nearly all cases anything published by MDPI is usually removed from Wikipedia's articles on nutrition. Very few cohort studies have been published looking at red meat consumption and dementia; I think it is very unlikely a reliable source will be found that covers this due to lack of studies. In 5 to 10 years we will have more studies but currently there is little to go on. Veg Historian (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MDPI journals should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as some of them are good and others aren't. Blanket removal is not appropriate. Foods (journal) is ranked at the 99th percentile.[6] Nutrients (journal) is ranked at the 88th percentile.[7] These numbers indicate a significant level of acceptance by the field. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They will be quickly removed because they are known for their poor peer review status and in the past have been associated with predatory publishing. Normally they do not last more than 24 or 48 hours on anything related to nutrition on Wikipedia. I have 1000s of articles on my watchlist and I always see them being removed. I have not seen this change in around 6 years. I agree with you we should use a case by case basis but MDPI has a poor reputation. Experienced users seem to be remove them very quickly. Veg Historian (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The MDPI Nutrients journal has been listed as predatory on the predatoryjournals.org website [8]. Veg Historian (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "experienced users" you mean one editor, sure: he's been removing them for years. But IMO Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 #8 has better advice than blanket removal, and WP:CITEWATCH says MDPI journals are currently cited in about 20,000 articles, so he's obviously not winning in every instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am following all this, and I think I've found 2 more scholarly papers that do meet the MEDRS standards of making this edit.
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12287645/
    (a giant population study of 204 countries doing linear progressions, showing a "robust association between meat supply and dementia incidence on a global scale."
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29555333/
    (a 2018 review of studies, published in Pharmacological Research, that states in the abstract that a diet "low in animal-derived proteins...decreases the risk of neurocognitive impairments and eventually the onset of AD [Alzheimer's]."
    I think this meets the standard of at least being mentioned on the red meat page. Dementia and red meat consumption seem to go hand in hand. Thoughts? Surftacular (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first (giant population study) is a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Mortality rates in a surgical procedure

    [edit]

    The article exploratory laparotomy says this in the lead: Overall operative mortality ranges between 10% and 20% worldwide for emergent exploratory laparotomies. Is the sourcing really good enough for a claim like that? I'm cautious approaching MEDRS related topics but I'd like to think I'm getting a better idea of what's acceptable and what's not. The newest source is from 2020 but it's specifically about rural Ghana. The other two are from 2012 and 2013. My understanding is that newer sources are generally preferred if available. The first source seems like the best one because it's analysing a much larger sample size than the others. However, the abstract gives a 14% mortality rate. It's also America-specific. I'd appreciate someone else's opinion on how to best approach this because this seems pretty SYNTH-y. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @Clovermoss, I agree with you that the lead doesn't explain it well enough, in plain English. I think it needs to sound a bit more like "The emergency version of this is sometimes done as a desperate last chance, on a person who is otherwise guaranteed to die, in the hope that the surgeons can save their lives." Most people don't know what "emergent" means.
    Have you looked for textbooks? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't really know how to seek out medical sources beyond basic Google Scholar/PubMed etc sources. I definitely don't have access to a medical library or anything like that. Unless there's a resource I'm not aware of that could be more helpful in this capacity? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some textbooks available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. It's late here, but let me look tomorrow (or the next day, but hopefully tomorrow) and see if I can turn up anything promising for you to look at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I started in Perlego, which requires a one-time application through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library that's generally worth doing.
    Schein's Common Sense Emergency Abdominal Surgery (2020) ISBN 9781910079874 is my main recommendation.  It's available at Perlego[9] and has surprised me by being the funniest medical textbook I've ever seen (advice for coordinating with anesthetists: "Wake them up from time to time and ask how the patient is doing").  Chapter 11 will be the most immediately relevant for that article, but search for a few favorite keywords throughout the book. (I haven't looked specifically for statistics, but it will be useful for quite a lot of the article.)
    Dr. Pestana's Surgery Notes (2021) ISBN 9781506276434 is also available at Perlego,[10] and I think it will be useful to anyone working on surgery articles, but alas, not for a description of exploratory laparotomy.
    Kaplan's Clinical Surgery Review 2023 ISBN 9781506284187 has useful information about some indications for emergency exploratory surgery but not what we need.  Here are the relevant quotations:
    • "Stab wounds allow a more individualized approach. In the presence of protruding viscera or peritoneal signs, proceed to the OR for exploratory laparotomy....If the anterior rectus fascia is violated, surgical exploration is indicated to evaluate for bowel or vascular injury"
    • "Blunt trauma to the abdomen with obvious signs of peritonitis or hemodynamic instability suggesting intra-abdominal hemorrhage requires emergent surgical evaluation via exploratory laparotomy"
    • "a gunshot wound to the abdomen needs surgical exploration every time"
    More generally:
    The Palgrave Handbook of the History of Surgery (2017) ISBN 9781349952601 is available at Perlego[11] and may be useful for the ==History== section in many articles about surgery.
    Speaking of history, Perlego has a few medical textbooks that are so old they're not under copyright protection any longer, and (like you will see on Amazon) they are often listed automatically by their "reprint" date instead of their actual date.  For example, I found multiple surgery textbooks with a "2025" date from "Science & Technology Publishing", all of which were actually written more than 100 years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Modafinil at Good Article Nominations

    [edit]

    Last month, Modafinil hit the one year milestone in the queue waiting for a good article review, and today it is by far the oldest item in the queue. A few months ago, WhatamIdoing left a note here, mentioning the page with the descriptor "stimulant, alleged "smart drug"" which I imagine is still applicable:

    If you'd like to be a GA reviewer, please give it a try! I and others are willing to mentor you if you'd like. Step one is to read the article and see whether it makes sense and whether the cited sources support the claims in the article (you're not expected to check WP:PAYWALLED sources, though we can help with those if you want to). You can even do this before posting that you're willing to do a formal review.

    I am among others; any help here is very welcome. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 11:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The nominator has been inactive since I quickfailed two other of their nominations for text-source integrity issues a few months ago. I won't review a third, but spot checking sources would be a good first step, rather than one later in the review. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Responsible use of AI for updating medical articles

    [edit]

    It can feel a bit intimidating to edit large medical articles, for instance those in the Vital Signs campaign. In the last couple of weeks, I found quite an effective route towards updating them with a bit of AI assistance, that others might feel useful too.

    1. Ask a general AI (like chatGPT) what has changed in understanding and practice in the last 10 years. Don't ask these types of AIs for sources, they will typically hallucinate what's in them (or sometimes even hallucinate their existence).
    2. Compare this to the article you want to update, and find the sentences and paragraphs that are likely outdated
    3. Then ask Consensus AI whether these fragments are still true based on recent reviews and clinical guidelines. Consensus AI tries to find how much agreement there is among the best sources. About 80% of sources are relevant in my experience, so a much bigger hit rate than searching via Google.
    4. Read the recommended sources and update the article.

    Getting an article to GA usually means rewriting from scratch, but just updating those things that are outdated is often enough for a B-class article. It's really cool to me how fast you can make a difference in those big articles. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    COVID19 vaccine

    [edit]

    I edited this article and I believe that it currently meets all 6 criteria for the B article, but as this is my first attempt, I'd appreciate an independent review. Thank you. Victoria (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    That's quite a beast. Thanks for your work! I think a good case can be made it meets the criteria. There's a few where I've got some quibbles.
    1. Understandability:
      1. I don't understand what 'immunogenicity' means in: Specifically, an adjuvant may be used in formulating a COVID‑19 vaccine candidate to boost its immunogenicity and efficacy to reduce or prevent COVID‑19 infection in vaccinated individuals. Can we leave it out? And call it immune response in the next paragraph? Or is that something else?
      2. I don't understand how the autologous delivery method works
      3. An explanation of what methotraxate is used for would be helpful
    2. And reliable sourcing. The article uses large-scale primary studies quite extensively. Probably quite a few of them could be replaced by secondary sources now, even though none of them are bad sources on their own. No need to be overly strict on MEDRS I don't think.
    Three more things not relevant for B-class:
    • but long COVID gets relatively low attention, as one of the four major outcomes of vaccines (alongside transmission, hospitalisation and deaths).
    • Tinnitus isn't really a serious adverse effect.
    • Timelines for conducting clinical research – normally a sequential process requiring years – were being compressed into safety, efficacy, and dosing trials running simultaneously over months, potentially compromising safety assurance. --> I think it's important to clarify it was trial participant safety that was potentially compromised, not the safety of the vaccines now.
    —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Two answers to your questions:
    Immunogenicity means how 'interesting' the substance is to the immune system. The point of an adjuvant in a vaccine is to make the immune system more interested in the intended antigen. Think of it this way: The intended antigen is the pill that your dog needs to swallow, and the adjuvant is the meat you wrap the pill in so the dog will be willing to swallow it.
    Methotrexate (a cytotoxic chemotherapy drug) is not the only drug that impairs immune responses, and this effect is not unique to the COVID vaccine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review, it is a beast. I was scared to cut anything, but I'll look into reducing redundancies.
    I agree that I need to address long COVID, autologos delivery, immunogenicity (it can be left out), methotraxate, timeline.
    Same on the primary sources, but I don't see how I can weed them out except by going one by one through 386 references.
    The impact of the tinnitus depends on its severity. I think we all experience it briefly from time to time, but some people have it constantly for years and cannot sleep, get depressed etc. I need to look at the source to see if they were "seriuos cases".--Victoria (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The new main definition is awkward. Future COVID-19 vaccines, for example, don't meat the current definition criteria (that is any of developed vaccines). Also several usually means a small amount, but I'd rather say that many vaccines have been developed to date. A variant like this would be much better: [12]. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And of course a source that defines a vaccine in details: [13]. D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How about:
    A COVID-19 vaccine is a vaccine designed to induce immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Multiple vaccines based on different technologies have been developed and deployed worldwide since 2020.--Victoria (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you can use the standard vaccine definition ([14]) and apply it to the COVID-19 disease (in your own words). In the same paragraph, you can specify the types of vaccines that are mentioned in Britannica and common administration routes. It's the main information that describes COVID-19 vaccines, as I think. D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I the only one who thinks that the List of authorized vaccines section is really hard to read and understand? I mean how the sentences are written. D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be simple: these two vaccines we authorised to be used in 2024, and that one in 2025. Victoria (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The section needs an introduction. It starts rather abruptly with a single country in 2024. It should start with a statement like: over the course of the pandemic, X number of vaccines were authorized. Only a few are authorized currently, because variants (if that's correct). Is the 2024/2025 one still authorised? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The old vaccines can still be used, they are not "de-authorised", it's just that they are less efficient than the current variants. Victoria (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone improve and expand "South Korean humidifier disinfectant case"

    [edit]

    It would be too much for me to improve and expand this article, by the way, it's the most horrible and largest case of corporate public health neglegience by dozens of corporations. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Link: South Korean humidifier disinfectant case WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone improve and expand "Dennō Senshi Porygon"

    [edit]

    It would be too much for me to improve and expand this article, by the way, at least it was accidental and they didn't knew about the harmful effects of flashing lights, so it wasn't a case where they knew about the harmful effects but still put flashing lights anyways to save money, time and effort, unlike the South korean humidifier disinfectant case where dozens of corporations put toxic chemicals in humidifier disinfectants, at least i hope that is the case here, but i think it is most likely accidental rather than knowing about the harmful effects and still using it anyway. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The article about Dennō Senshi Porygon is already longer than average.
    There is also a discussion about video/images at Talk:Dennō Senshi Porygon#Why are we including the seizure inducing video in article without warning? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant like how it is shorter than the Japanese Wikipedia article about it. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone improve and expand "YAT Anshin! Uchū Ryokō", especially the "Incident" section

    [edit]

    It would be too much for me to improve and expand this article and the section, the reason why i'm writing this is because compared to the Japanese Wikipedia article, there is way less information in the English Wikipedia article, but especially the "Incident" section (which by the way, has to do with flashing lights just like the Dennō Senshi Porygon incident/Pokémon Shock), which on both on the Japanese Wikipedia and in the English article, there is way less information in both languages of the wikipedia article than the amount of information in the sources (the Japanese wikipedia article on itself dosen't have much information about this incident, so therefore, sources is a more important comparison compared to the Japanese wikipedia, and also there are different sources about this incident in the Japanese Wikipedia article, so therefore, these additional sources in the Japanese Wikipedia needs to also be put in the English article as well, we might as well find new web pages about this incident that are considered reliable sources for the English article) therefore, this article and especially the "Incident" section needs to be improved and expanded by a lot. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This is about YAT Anshin! Uchū Ryokō. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But it had a incident with flashing lights that caused photosensitive symptoms such as photosensitive epileptic seizures. ~2025-43053-85 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Logorrhea (psychology)#Requested move 4 January 2026

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Logorrhea (psychology)#Requested move 4 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 04:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Candidozyma auris § Requested move 17 January 2026

    [edit]

    An editor has requested that Candidozyma auris be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    8am scramble

    [edit]

    I've created an article 8am scramble for the phenomenon in UK general practice healthcare. This is a highly controversial and politicised subject, so it would be useful to have input from editors who have direct knowledge of the situation. — The Anome (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Object sexuality#Requested move 6 January 2026

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Object sexuality#Requested move 6 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 08:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Peer review: Human Intervention Motivation Study

    [edit]

    Requesting feedback on Human Intervention Motivation Study, the FAA program coordinating treatment and monitoring for aviation professionals with substance use disorders. The article covers substance misuse screening, EtG/PEth testing protocols (including SAMHSA advisories on reliability), 12-step treatment requirements, and the 2023 National Academies report finding insufficient evidence of program effectiveness. A peer review is open. Feedback from WikiProject Medicine editors on the medical/testing content would be appreciated. LumenStoneEditor (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Reiki

    [edit]

    There are two systematic reviews which are completely at odds with each other:

    Care to explain? Is this a trick? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks normal to me, bearing in mind the affiliations of the authors in each case. We have a way of dealing with the "dont withdraw my funding" "of course we'll follow the party line" science on show here. Walter Ego 01:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, hang on, Reike is a japanese invention, why are the chinese bigging it up. Never thought of that. - Walter Ego 01:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, TCM believes in Qi. But both are systematic reviews indexed for MEDLINE. The one says it's all fluff, the other says it is highly recommended. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't dig deep, but the first systematic review describes the results separately for the low-quality studies and for the higher quality studies. In the second systematic review, I didn't find such separation.
    The next point is where to search for the studies. The first one conducted the search upon a few medicine-related databases, while the second used Scopus among others. Scopus can contain a lot of low-quality literature translated into English, which might significantly affect the result.
    Also, I didn't find the exact definition of the quality of life term in the second review. If a study wasn't blind, then the patients could have reported biased opinions about their pain, for example. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit request: extensive neuropathology literature and ongoing study activity omitted

    [edit]

    Hello editors. I am requesting a content-balanced update to the body of the Nun Study article (not the lede) to address a substantial omission. While the article thoroughly documents early epidemiologic, linguistic, and educational findings from the Nun Study, it omits both (1) a large and influential body of peer-reviewed neuropathology literature generated from this cohort over several decades and (2) evidence that the study remains an active research resource with ongoing distribution of data and biospecimens.

    As currently written, the article gives the impression that neuropathologic evaluation served primarily as confirmatory background and that the study is largely historical. This is inconsistent with the published scientific record and current research use of the cohort.

    Nature of the omission

    Neuropathology-based investigations using Nun Study autopsy material have made foundational contributions to understanding clinicopathologic discordance between Alzheimer disease neuropathologic change and cognition, the modifying role of cerebrovascular disease in the clinical expression of dementia, hippocampal sclerosis as a major substrate of late-life cognitive impairment, TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43) pathology as a frequent and clinically relevant co-pathology, and the concepts of cognitive resilience and resistance despite substantial neuropathology.

    These findings directly informed modern mixed-dementia frameworks and consensus diagnostic criteria and are widely cited across neurology and neuropathology.

    In addition, the Nun Study continues to function as an active research cohort, with standardized procedures for external investigators to request biospecimens and associated data.

    Representative neuropathology literature (peer-reviewed, independent)

    The following publications illustrate the breadth of neuropathologic work based on Nun Study material that is not currently reflected in the article text.

    Snowdon DA, Greiner LH, Mortimer JA, Riley KP, Greiner PA, Markesbery WR. Brain infarction and the clinical expression of Alzheimer disease. JAMA. 1997;277(10):813–817. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03540340047033.

    Riley KP, Snowdon DA, Markesbery WR. Alzheimer’s neurofibrillary pathology and the spectrum of cognitive function: findings from the Nun Study. Annals of Neurology. 2002;51(5):567–577. doi:10.1002/ana.10161.

    Markesbery WR, Schmitt FA, Kryscio RJ, Davis DG, Smith CD, Wekstein DR. Neuropathologic substrate of mild cognitive impairment. Archives of Neurology. 2006;63(1):38–46. doi:10.1001/archneur.63.1.38.

    Nelson PT, Schmitt FA, Lin Y, et al. Hippocampal sclerosis in advanced age: clinical and pathological features. Brain. 2011;134(5):1506–1518.

    Flanagan ME, Cholerton B, Latimer CS, Hemmy LS, Edland SD, Montine KS, White LR, Montine TJ. TDP-43 neuropathologic associations in the Nun Study and the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. 2018;66(4):1549–1558. doi:10.3233/JAD-180162.

    Latimer CS, Keene CD, Hemmy LS, et al. Resistance to Alzheimer disease neuropathologic changes and apparent cognitive resilience in the Nun and Honolulu-Asia Aging Studies. Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology. 2017;76(6):458–466. doi:10.1093/jnen/nlx030.

    Nelson PT, Dickson DW, Trojanowski JQ, et al. Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE): consensus working group report. Brain. 2019;142(6):1503–1527.

    Montine TJ, Phelps CH, Beach TG, et al. National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association guidelines for the neuropathologic assessment of Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Neuropathologica. 2012;123(1):1–11. doi:10.1007/s00401-011-0910-3.

    Clarke KM, Dopler M, Gonzalez A, et al. The Nun Study: Insights from 30 years of aging and dementia. Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz.14626.

    Evidence of ongoing study activity

    The Nun Study remains an active research resource, with a publicly available materials and data request process for external investigators, including access to biospecimens, neuropathology data, and associated clinical information. The materials request page is available at: https://labs.uthscsa.edu/flanagan/the-nun-study-materials-request/

    Requested action

    I am not requesting a comprehensive rewrite. Rather, I propose adding a concise subsection (for example, “Neuropathology, clinicopathologic insights, and ongoing research use”) summarizing these findings, and citing representative high-impact neuropathology publications and the active materials request process to reflect current scientific use of the cohort.

    This would improve balance, accuracy, and completeness in accordance with Wikipedia’s due-weight and medical sourcing standards.

    Thank you for your consideration. ~2026-44856-3 (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @~2026-44856-3, there is an [Edit] button at the top of the article Nun Study. Why don't you try making one small change and see how it goes? For example, you could add one or two sentences, with a good source. Be sure to write in your own words (using ChatGPT and other LLMs is firmly discouraged) and don't add anything that isn't clearly supported by the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all, if I may weigh in as an active researcher in the area -- the Nun Study was somewhat superseded by the Rush Religious Orders Study (ROS), which in turn was augmented by the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) to become ROSMAP, which is today one of the largest sources of neuropathological samples and data regarding the aging and demented brain. The latter two studies are only briefly described on the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center page, yet are far more accessible and therefore in much greater active use by the modern AD research community. I do think the Nun Study should continue to have its own page because its historical provenance is distinct from that of ROS and MAP, but I would cautiously say that the Nun Study may already have undue-weight issues in its current form. In my opinion, the Nun Study article explains specific primary research findings in excessive detail and should be edited down for concision before adding more content. I will try to take a crack at it later today or this weekend.
    PS: I saw you posted the same request on Talk:Nun Study and Talk:Neuroscience. The former is a perfectly fine place to ask for revisions to the article itself, but the talk page for the encyclopedia article on "neuroscience" is unlikely to get much traction. You might want to check out WikiProject Neuroscience where neuroscience-interested editors tend to gather. No need to repost a 4th time, I will make a link over there. Aeffenberger (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Fix Lead citation

    [edit]

    Anybody wants to add a medical citation to this lead? Postprandial somnolence Kingsacrificer (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback requested on Transvestism – Cross-dressing merger

    [edit]

    Your opinion would be appreciated in the merge discussion at Talk:Cross-dressing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Organization of Shift work

    [edit]

    In the article Shift work, I improved the by moving scheduling-related information to the forefront, since the article lacks a clear overview of types of shift work. However, I still need help condensing and organizing the large amount of redundant health-related information in the article. Latest non-primary studies should be prioritized where multiple sources discuss the same topic, and low-quality material discarded. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Improving UNT Health Fort Worth History section

    [edit]

    Hey there! I'm an employee at UNT Health Fort Worth, a university and health science center. In mid-December, I used the edit request system to propose a rewrite of the UNT Health article's History section. My rewrite keeps the existing section mostly intact while improving sourcing on existing claims, excising claims that I couldn't find good sourcing for, and adding some new information about the university's evolution over its five-plus decades of operation. I'm posting here in hopes that somebody at this WikiProject has the time and inclination to review my request, which you can view by following this link.

    Thanks in advance to anybody who makes the effort to review! LM at UNT Health (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    ICD-10-CM

    [edit]

    Template:ICD10CM sends people to the FY2024 version, but they're now on FY2026. Is there a reason to not update it? Snowman304|talk 21:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The last edit summary there did indicate that it needs updating every year, so feel free to change 2024 to 2026 in the template code! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think that worked! Snowman304|talk 22:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Improving the structural representation of a Seattle-based medical institution

    [edit]

    Hello, I am a new editor who is eager for feedback. I am a retired science writer and editor from the University of Washington, and volunteer published and editor of a local news site. I am seeking guidance from more experienced editors on how to approach a structural issue regarding UW Medicine, a $9 billion entity in Washington.

    The parent organization, UW Medicine, which oversees the clinical, educational, and research enterprises, is currently described midway through the article for one of its subordinance entities, University of Washington School of Medicine

    (In the first draft of this note, I cut and pasted the parent entry that was in the middle of the article to make it easier to read, but I then created a separate discussion topic so I'm trying to erase that now. Many apologies for the rookie error)


    Walter again: It seems counterintuitive per general information hierarchy for a parent organization to be nested inside a child article per WP:SUMMARY. Shouldn't UW Medicine have its own page to reflect its status as an entity distinct, though closely related, to specific and varied clinical operations, educational schools, and the research enterprise?

    I have become aware of a Draft:UW Medicine which has been rejected. I see the reviewer’s concerns about the promotional tone. Given my background, but aware everything has to be attributed, I would like to rehabilitate that draft - or create a new one? - that would be appropriate for Wikipedia, properly sourced, neutral, unbiased, etc.

    Disclosure: As a retired employee of the University, I have a WP:COI. I have no further financial relationship with the institution. I am absolutely committed to WP:NPOV. I was thinking I would, at least at first, propose all changes on the Talk page so anyone can review editing.

    Would you agree that a standalone page for a parent organization makes sense in this context? I would be so grateful for any guidance, feedback, mentorship, wisdom, from the veteran editors here.

    Thank you, Walter WNear (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @WNear, here are a few thoughts I had, and perhaps others will add more:
    • It's not required to have a hierarchical arrangement. Sometimes the approach you describe is fine. But for large organizations, it's common to have all the articles. (Compare Meta Platforms + Facebook or Alphabet Inc. + Google, or even universities + their medical schools + their medical school's hospitals.)
    • You can help out with Draft:UW Medicine. Another new editor started it; you can find his name in the page history, and the two of you might talk it over on his User_talk: page. I suspect that he'd be happy to have some help. (Most newer editors are.) He also reports a COI (his father-in-law ran the medical school).
    • Because the pages is in the Draft: space, I wouldn't bother proposing changes on the Draft_talk: page. I'd leave a note and then edit directly. (If anyone complains, send them to me.) After it gets moved to the article space, then I think your idea about proposing changes on the Talk: page is a good one.
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Sling (medicine) - just a stub?

    [edit]

    In case someone is looking for a topic to work on. Wow. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Brown draft - looking for opinions

    [edit]

    I'd really appreciate some eyes on my draft for Ian Brown. The cases he is involved in have been cropping up frequently in the news, but I'm not sure if a BLP page is the best fit in this case as I can't find a huge amount of information about his previous work/education. Any thoughts or advice around the article would be great!

    Sleepytimecat (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    A "Temozolomide overprescription incident" article would be another way to approach it.
    The Temozolomide article contains no information about the usual length of treatment or this scandal. Adding a couple of sentences to that might be a good place to start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Lush, that was one of the ways I was considering doing it! Good catch on the Temozolomide article, shall give that an edit too! Sleepytimecat (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Archive.is and archive.today

    [edit]

    There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Deprecating and blacklisting archive.today that suggests that we should reconsider the use of the Archive.today and Archive.is websites. If anyone is interested in working on this, then here's a simple search that identifies some medicine-related articles that contain one of these two sites. Do not click on the archive links.

    If you can:

    • Remove unnecessarily duplicate or Wikipedia:Citation overkill sources.
    • Remove the archive link (if the original website is still working).
    • Replace it with a good source.

    Otherwise:

    WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @WhatamIdoing Remove the archive link (if the original website is still working). probably better to post at BOTREQ, someone could write some code to check if the original website is still working and still contains the |quote= if any, and then uses archive.org to archive it. Polygnotus (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    MEDRS

    [edit]

    Please see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#"Respect secondary sources" is inconsistent with WP:EXTRAORDINARY WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    In what context is this post being made? Is this part of another discussion? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 02:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You could ask the OP there. The edit he made immediately before starting that discussion was at Talk:Autism, so it might be related to that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Images needed

    [edit]

    This PetScan list shows top- and high- rated articles that don't have a lead image. Sometimes that's intentional, or the image isn't detected (e.g., due to uncommon dimensions), but most articles should have at least one image. Images are things that readers really appreciate. If you're interested in searching for images, please consider working on this list.

    In case you've never tried it before, the visual editor has a built-in search system for images. Just go to Insert > Images and media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This is lovely. The list seems to contain a large number of articles that are not listed as high or top-importance however, including redirects and even articles not in our project. Are you running from an old list? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I set up the link with one of the pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Lists of pages. Unfortunately, it looks like it was last updated 10 years ago. Do you have an interest in updating the lists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We have illustrators who are looking for projects. If you have an idea or a copyrighted image, they can create an open source one for us. You can see some of their work here MDWiki:WikiProjectMed:Requested_images Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the underlying list of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears many of these articles used to have images but they were removed. We used to illustrate many mental disorders with either historical images or word charts but this has been controversial. Some examples:

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears images are frequently removed as part of vandalism[16] and than clean up doesn't actually revert the vandalism just removed the copyright problems.[17] Same pattern was at knee replacement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion of Reperfusion

    [edit]
    Notice

    The article Reperfusion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

    A disambiguation page should not be a dictionary definition (WP:NOTDICT) followed by two WP:Partial title matches. If this page were to be a stub article about reperfusion it would need WP:RSMED sources. Deletion would give uninhibited Search results, which is better because it gives access to the Wikt definition and would list the top 4 articles as Reperfusion injury, Ischemia, Post-cardiac arrest syndrome, and Reperfusion therapy.

    You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

    Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

    If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion of MAT deficiency

    [edit]
    Notice

    The article MAT deficiency has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

    "MAT deficiency" doesn't appear in either article, and articles about medical terms ought to be held to a high standard. Also, "MAT" doesn't appear at HADHB to where beta-ketothiolase redirects, and "MAT" doesn't appear in Hypermethioninemia but "MAT1A" does.

    You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

    Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

    If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine#Requested move 27 January 2026

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine#Requested move 27 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vestrian24Bio 13:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    Featured article review for meningitis

    [edit]

    I have nominated Meningitis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced articles again

    [edit]

    One of the things this group is known for is sourcing articles. Right now, we've got 7 articles tagged as having no sources anywhere on the page. Please pick one, add a source, and remove the tag. Any single reliable source (even if it's not independent) is sufficient to get it out of this category.

    (The first might need eligible for tagging as a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page rather than a regular article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Also: If you're an organized sort of person, please consider putting this PetScan query in your calendar/reminder/bookmarks. We need a couple of people to keep an eye out for this, so that we never end up in a deep hole. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1337887686"