Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Draft:Precision BioSciences

Hi! Sharing in case this is of interest to anyone here: a draft article about Precision BioSciences, a publicly traded clinical stage gene editing company, is currently under review in the AfC queue. I have a COI here – Precision BioSciences is a client of mine. Happy to answer any questions, and appreciate any time/feedback. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ivermectin on Protease inhibitor (pharmacology)

Hi there! I'm involved in a dispute on whether Ivermectin should be listed as a 3-chymotrypsin-like protease inhibitor on the page Protease inhibitor (pharmacology). It would be terrific if additional editors could weigh in to help resolve the dispute, and the community here seems like a really good resource. I've added some discussion to Talk:Protease inhibitor (pharmacology), as well. Thanks so much! Asacarny (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Lack of pharmacological data tables

There seems to be a wide lack of receptor affinity or binding tables on some classes of drug. Psychiatric drugs developed in recent decades generally have them (like the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetiapine#Pharmacology ). But drugs of natural derivation, drugs that predate modern pharmacology, and drugs that have little or no approved psychiatric uses often lack them (like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedrine#Mechanism_of_action ). I wonder if the information simply doesn't exist (might make a good research area for grad students!), if this is from general neglect due to the non-psychiatric nature, or if it is just too hard to find and insufficient. This is a frequent area of annoyance for me as I read about these things as a hobbyist and for personal uses. Currently I've been looking (again) for any information about the TAAR1 receptor vis-a-vis ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylephrine but so far 10 minutes on DuckDuckGo has also failed me. If the information is available, I think this would be a good area for an editing initiative. Cooperdozier (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

While many of the articles are lacking data table on Wikipedia, some of the linked databases do have the data; my favourite is the BPS/IUPHAR Guide to Pharmacology which has 'biological data' tables for each. Phenylephrine, for example; links to these databases are in the infobox, so are accessible once you know to look there. However, you're right that older drugs have data that is less frequently digitally available. Klbrain (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrotope article

I am not a Wikipedian; but I noticed that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrotope was in need of important updating, so I added a note to its "Talk" page (the "Bankruptcy and Aftermath" item, which includes links to relevant sources), hoping that the author of the page would automatically be informed, and would update the page.

But 8 weeks later, there is still no change. A Wikipedian whom I asked suggested that I contact you.

(As I say in my note on the Retrotope Talk page, the page on Retrotope's one product, RT001, should be similarly updated.) 2600:1700:B8B8:40:7865:6A2:1C05:5731 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestion for Retrotope. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. In addition, RT001 has its own page. Could you be more specific as to what needs to be updated? Cheers Boghog (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation of links to Interaction

Could you help to disambiguate some of the links to Interaction? This list shows the 200+ articles with links to the disambiguation page. It would help readers to link to a more specific article. Some are chemistry and pharmacology related and others biology, physics, mathmatics or other sciences. Any help with sorting these out would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 12:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Eli Lilly Featured article review

I have nominated Eli Lilly for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. 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 regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Psilocybin Featured article review

User:DigitalIceAge has nominated Psilocybin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. 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 regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Amino acid

Amino acid 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Contest

I started an informal, low-key contest about adding citations to articles for WikiProject Medicine. You can join it through this link: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds

So far, we've discovered that some of us spend more time removing (bad) sources than adding new ones. Last I checked the leaderboard, the winner had only added 41 citations (net), so I think the field's wide open to anyone who is interested. If you sign up, it will count your edits retroactively from the beginning of January (when we started), so there's no penalty for joining late. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Help needed to delete articles

This three drugs ([1], [2], [3]) are no longer being developed. In my opinion their articles should be deleted, as they are not relevant anymore. How can I do it? In my talk page I was informed that it was not reason enough, so I do not know how to do it. MathTexLearner (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@MathTexLearner: As noted on your talk page, you would need to use the Articles for deletion process instead of requesting speedy deletion. This creates a discussion page where other editors discuss a deletion request. The process is explained at that page but is not very simple to do manually. It is a lot easier if you use WP:TWINKLE, added by ticking the box at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Note though that just because a drug is no longer being developed does not mean that the article should necessarily be deleted. If multiple independent sources exist then it is likely that the discussion would be closed with the article being kept. As an alternative, it might be better to update the articles citing reliable sources to say that they are no longer in development. SmartSE (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:MCQ § Proactive request for input

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § Proactive request for input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the pharmacology project still alive?

I fear that many of the entries on pharmacology are well below the standard that one has come to expect from Wikipedia. This is especially true of entries with a theoretical content, for example Schild regression, and pages that deal with efficacy and affinity. I doubt if they can be made satisfactory by tinkering. They need to be re-written from scratch.

I would appreciate advice about the best way to proceed. David Colquhoun (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As for the project, I'm here at least, although the amount of activity depends on the number of interested editors at any given time. WT:MED is very active all the time, and you can usually find editors with pharmacology expertise there if you don't get a response here.

I've put Schild regression on my watchlist, and will try to help where I can, although I'm probably not going to take the lead in revising it. I looked at your talk page comments for that page. I agree with you about moving the page to Schild equation, and would support making such a move. For the other corrections in sourcing and nomenclature, I think it would be fine for you to WP:Be bold, and just make those edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much. That's the quickest response that I've ever had from Wikipedia.

Sadly I think that there's too much wrong with the page to make it recoverable. It really needs to be deleted and started again with a different title -the Schild Equation would be fine.

It's a topic that I've been immersed in ever since Heinz Schild gave me my first job in 1964, so it's painful to see it misunderstood. David Colquhoun (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to see a subject matter expert editing here, and I'm sure anything you can do will be much appreciated. I've, at least, gone ahead and moved the page myself, and made a few copyedits. (As for the quick response, I just happened to be watching, and the "still active?" part of your post caught my attention.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, it's OK to blank sections of the page and rewrite them from scratch. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

David, please forgive me for being a bit slow, but I just realized who you are. As it happens, I previously worked with Sol Snyder. --Tryptofish talk) 19:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I don't much like anonymity myself, so I've always used my real name in wikipedia (and elsewhere).

Do I infer correctly that when you say 'move a page', you mean that you change its title?

I will have a go at rewriting the page though it may take a while (partly because I'll need to master the math notation used by wikipedia). Where should I put the draft? David Colquhoun (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed the title. Now, the title of the page is Schild equation. If someone tries to go to Schild regression, the software automatically redirects them to the current page.

You can write the draft at your leisure at User:David Colquhoun/Drafts/Schild equation. For now, that link is red, but if you just click onto that red link and say "yes" that you want to create the page, the edit window will open up and the page will be blue, and you can edit as you wish, without anyone else interfering with you over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Dispute at Theanine

This revert was justified for several reasons discussed repeatedly on the article talk page here among which are primary research, outdated sources by 11-15 years, absence of WP:MEDRS reviews, and dubious quality of journals. Reflecktor has not addressed the deficiences of the sources raised on the talk page, but persists in edit warring to reach WP:3RR today as before seen in recent editing history.

As an analog of glutamate and rare in food, beverages or supplement products, theanine as a pharmacological/physiological issue is WP:UNDUE. The extraordinary claims of benefit by theanine on memory, cognition, learning, and brain chemistry require extraordinary sources, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which do not exist. Comments welcomed. Zefr (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Clobenzorex

I'm hoping that some of you will have a look at the article, its history, and the talk page--well, its history, since I cleaned it up some. There's a dispute over what kind of drug that stuff is, and there's two editors who are better at fighting and yelling than at following proper etiquette on talk pages and in edit summaries. But there's also the matter of the article, which apparently has some unclarities. Your help is appreciated! Drmies (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: I looked, and since it's full-protected and I also am not in the mood to get in the middle of that talk page mess, I thought I'd reply to you here for now, and you can let me know if you'd like me to do something after the protection is over. Both editors are wrong: it's beside the point to argue over whether it's an "analog" of amphetamine or not, because it's a prodrug of amphetamine, which means that after it gets into a human body, it gets chemically converted into amphetamine. From a limited search into it, it is apparently not listed as a controlled substance in the US, but it is also not approved by the FDA. The page has a serious lack of sourcing, and, as a minor point, the legal status section header needs to be sentence case. If you haven't done so already, you might want to post at WT:MED, which is a lot more active. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I appreciate you. Yes, I was going to go to something starting with "MED", but then I saw the template on the talk page and followed that. I fully protected it--well you know why. I'll take your word for it, that they're both wrong; it was clear already that both acted in a way that wasn't going to resolve the issue, and my post here, and I'll take it to MED as well, was to hope to entice some editors into improving the article since I have a firm belief that more decent articles are more stable. Hey, thanks so much! Drmies (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The disputed issue is whether the prodrug clobenzorex is a controlled substance in the US. The letter mentioned on the talk page, purportedly signed by Terrence L. Boos, if it is legitimate would seem to settle the issue. I suppose someone could contact the DEA to confirm that the letter is authentic, or even better, ask them to issue a public statement. I have searched for independent reliable sources that would support that statement, but have not been able to find any. This source implies but does not explicitly state that clobenzorex is not controlled in the US.

The article definitely needs more sources. I found the statement that racemic clobenzorex is metabolized into enantiopure d-amphetamine rather suprising. But there is a source that supports that statement. Boghog (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Theanine

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Tea component theanine and its putative cognitive effects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Dispute at Post-finasteride syndrome

Hi all,

I recently drafted a new article for post-finasteride syndrome, which I hope addresses some concerns that were raised during a dispute in 2021 over whether enough reliable sources could be found to support the legitimacy of PFS as a medical condition (see the talk page for PFS, which currently is a redirect to the finasteride page). I was informed upon submitting the draft for review that I should first seek consensus among editors following in the page as to whether the new draft resolved the prior issues; I made a post on Talk:Finasteride in an effort to start a discussion, but have not yet received any responses. I have also contacted the user that locked the PFS page following the dispute.

In the event that no editors feel compelled to comment and establish consensus, how should I go about navigating this situation?

As a side note, if anyone has any comments or critiques of the draft as it currently stands, or has additional sources they would like me to add, please feel free to let me know.

Best, Xardwen (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Received request to merge the Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction article into the Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor article on July 29, 2023. Reason: (See ongoing discussion following an AfD decision. Join the discussion >>>HERE<<<). GenQuest ^"scribble" for (SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/LeDock - molecular docking software designed for docking ligands with protein targets.

FYI, please see

• Articles for deletion/LeDock

It's molecular docking software designed for docking ligands with protein targets.

Please add your input as to what we should do with this article. Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Black box warnings for drugs

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Black box warnings project. An editor would like to note the existence of black box warnings and the EU downward-pointing triangle in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Table

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 September 28#Template:Pharmacokinetic metrics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Percy Lavon Julian

Percy Lavon Julian 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. Spinixster (chat!) 08:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Biocompatibles

Would someone like to take a look at Biocompatibles? The company's website now redirects to Boston Scientific's. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. Maybe this should go to AfD? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm about to be away from Wikipedia, but I could start the AfD when I get back. Or someone else could start it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"IL-5 antibody" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect IL-5 antibody has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 11 § IL-5 antibody until a consensus is reached. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Arrakis Therapeutics edit request outreach

Hello, this is Daphne from Arrakis here on this Talk page in hopes of courting editor feedback on the edit request I have posted to the Arrakis Therapeutics Talk page.

The article is currently flagged, and I've put forward a rewrite of the first paragraph of the article that attempts to use improved sourcing and provide a more neutral point of view to the article in hopes of getting the flag removed in the future. If anybody is interested in evaluating my request, I genuinely appreciate it.

If you have any questions about the edit request, I'll be standing by to respond. Thanks so much! DaphneArrakis (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mitomycin#Requested move 31 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mitomycin#Requested move 31 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SkyWarrior 16:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Antacid, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Leonurine

The article leonurine was tagged with the {{More medical citations needed}} warning template in 2021. Since then, the article has accumulated much more content that appears to be supported only low-quality references and/or primary references that are inconsistent with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). If someone with subject expertise could have a look, particularly at the "Pharmacology" section, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Marbletan (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Tricaprin

I noticed a gap in the coverage of this specific triglyceride with a lot of work being done in recent decades, tricaprin, and would like some eyes on it as I work on getting the article ready for mainspace. I'm new to working on chemical articles with pharmacological applications and want to make sure I'm not putting in primary research to support medical claims here or otherwise giving undue weight to certain applications: Draft:Tricaprin Reconrabbit 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look at your draft; you are using primary sources, but you're using them as a statement of fact (that there are clinical trials for ...) rather than a claim of utility (that they are helpful for ...). So, my view is that what you've written is fine and helpful! Klbrain (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I only felt comfortable using language stronger than just "has been studied" when citing the NCI Dictionary. Thanks for taking a look. Once the production info is filled in I will publish. Reconrabbit 12:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sunobinop improvements

Greetings! I'm Valentine, an employee of Imbrium Therapeutics, the company developing sunobinop. Because of my conflict of interest, I posted suggestions to improve the sunobinop article at Talk:Sunobinop#Sunobinop article improvements and included the template for requesting an edit. I'm posting here since it's a more specialized topic and I thought this group might be interested. Thanks, ImbriumValentine (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Integrate definitive new findings

Much of the staggering mortality rates and health care costs associated with drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is clearly linked to 11 drugs not well-known for their hepatotoxic risk, per the editorial accompanying https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2820267, which just came out. Lets get this added to the 11 to 17 relevant articles, liver failure, etc.RememberOrwell (talk)

References

This is a cohort study, which is classified as primary. Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (review articles) are needed to support medical claims. Furthermore the accompanying editorial describes this cohort study as an "innovative methodologic approach". We need to wait for this study to be evaluated in reliable secondary sources before citing those secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and help. I see that per the verifiability policy, "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science." Given the size of the study, risk of bias, and the source (JAMA), it seems solid enough, but if reliable sources differ, that matters. I don't want to jump the gun, but I'm not convinced we need to wait. Also, the editorial IS a secondary source. LOL, you've made ~leetk (1337k) edits, Boghog. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Seven (stavudine (86.4 eptkpy), erlotinib, lenalidomide ?"or"? thalidomide, chlorpromazine, metronidazole, prochlorperazine, isoniazid) had 10+ events per 10 000 person-years (eptkpy), while ten (moxifloxacin, azathioprine, levofloxacin, clarithromycin, ketoconazole, fluconazole, captopril, amoxicillin-clavulanate, sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim, ciprofloxacin) had 5-10 eptkpy. Eleven of these (64%) were not included in the highest hepatotoxicity category of LiverTox. RememberOrwell (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy#Requested move 15 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for excerpt of text, from Archiv der Pharmazie (1987)

In furtherance of editing an article, we would ask that any individual having access to a chemistry, pharmacology, or medical library that could give access to the following article,

• Rücker G, Neugebauer M, Neugebauer M, Heiden PG (December 1987). "Zur chemischen Stabilität des Fenetyllins" [The chemical stability of fenethylline]. Archiv der Pharmazie (in German). 320 (12): 1272–1275. doi:10.1002/ardp.198700045. PMID 3439867. S2CID 84235752.

that they copy and paste the relevant synthetic text into a Talk entry at the Fenethylline article. That article presents a scheme in the Synthesis section, and the aim of consulting this source is to verify that the Scheme reflects the content of this source (per WP:VERIFY). Specifically, the scheme shows conversion of theophylline into a 7-(β-chloroethyl)-analog by treatment of the parent compound with a 1,2-dihaloethane, and then conversion of that analog, by treatment with the free base of amphetamine, to the fenethylline product (a codrug composed of theophylline and amphetamine linked by a two carbon bridge).

Our presumption is that in performing the chemical stability studies reported in the Archiv der Pharmazie abstract, Rücker et al first had to prepare the chemical sample they studied, hence this paper might contain a proscribed, quotable (copyable) synthetic method, and perhaps a scheme corresponding to the one at the Fenethylline article. Any of the relevant quoted German text, pasted at Talk for that article, and any further comment you would wish to make, would be greatly appreciated, and would likely allow us to verify the information attributed to this source. Thank you. 98.206.30.195 (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)