Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 12, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that some people with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome can lose the ability to speak? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||
|
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 16:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- ... that many people with long COVID develop myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome? Source: https://www.iqwig.de/download/n21-01_me-cfs-aktueller-kenntnisstand_abschlussbericht_v1-0.pdf, p.228
- ALT1: ... that per healthy life year lost, research funding for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome is only 3-7% of what the average condition gets? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8290307/
- ALT2: ... that some people with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome can lose the ability to speak? Source: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206/resources/myalgic-encephalomyelitis-or-encephalopathychronic-fatigue-syndrome-diagnosis-and-management-pdf-66143718094021 (page 50)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chelymorpha alternans
Improved to Good Article status by Femke (talk), Ward20 (talk), and The Quirky Kitty (talk). Nominated by Femke (talk) at 08:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- I will review this. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Overall a good read. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Either hook is good. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
We are in WP:QPQ backlog mode. Double reviews are required.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger, according to https://qpqtool.toolforge.org/qpq/Femke, Femke has made nine DYK nominations, so she does not need an extra QPQ. TSventon (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Double QPQ is not required. This nomination is good to go. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 18:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the QPQ check tool to the right counts only 9. I don't really trust the QPQ tool that much because it barely counts 40% of my own nominations. But If the nominator feels that they have done less than 20 noms this can go forward or they can do the double. This case is on the honor system.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see an obvious one missing on the list, but will help with the backlog when I've got some time to spare. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- The tool gives a complete list of the nominations made by Femke since she started editing in 2014. It does not pick up nominations made before 2011, but that is not relevant here. TSventon (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see an obvious one missing on the list, but will help with the backlog when I've got some time to spare. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The article is written like a blog
[edit]An article on a neurological illness should not be written like this, it doesn't read encyclopedic. Comparison with cancer? What, seriously? Most references are ME/CFS advocacy sites. If it's as serious as cancer and AIDS, how come "Doctors may be unfamiliar with ME/CFS, as it is often not fully covered in medical school" and " No specific lab tests are approved for diagnosis; while physical abnormalities can be found, no single finding is considered sufficient for diagnosis"? Overall, the article overexaggerates the illness. Necatorina (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- The article is based primarily on clinical guidelines from NICE, IqWiG, and the CDC, and on the Mayo clinic and the BMJ sources on the illness. I believe those are the best sources on the illness you can get.
- The article doesn't say the illness is worse than cancer and AIDS it says the quality of life of people with the illness is worse than examined cancers and HIV/AIDS. The QoL of AIDS is quite good, given effective medication exists.
- It may feel like the article describes a more serious illness than you may be familiar with because of how it's currently defined vs how it was defined 10 years ago. Now, to have even mild ME/CFS, you need a 50% reduction in functional capacity compared to pre-illness. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just to underline, the comparison on QOL is sourced to a peer-reviewed study. Meanwhile, it’s not the case that
"Most references are ME/CFS advocacy sites."
I only see one such reference in almost 100 sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)- I've replaced the research charity with the CDC. In terms of the how tag, on the mortality from ME, the answer is usually malnutritution as far as I'm aware, but I'm struggling to cite this:
- The original source describes the two in the same sentence, but does not make the link. It states: "This can lead to loss of ability to work, the need for care including artificial nutrition and, in very severe cases, even death."
- Our source on care for people with severe ME/CFS notes life-threatening malnutrution. Maybe I'm too purist here, but it doesn't say people die explicitly?
- The NASEM long COVID report also doesn't say what people die from. It just says over 5,000 have died without clarifying if they also had ME/CFS or what they died from.
- Non-MEDRS, but for context, renal failure from ME has also been noted as a cause of death.
- My preference is to remove the tag without using any of these sources. But open to adding something if we can of course. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you so much for looking into all that. Yes seems reasonable to remove the tag for now; I’ll do that. There’s a new preprint reviewing nutrition for severe patients that might eventually be helpful but we’d have to see when its final form is published. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've replaced the research charity with the CDC. In terms of the how tag, on the mortality from ME, the answer is usually malnutritution as far as I'm aware, but I'm struggling to cite this:
- Just to underline, the comparison on QOL is sourced to a peer-reviewed study. Meanwhile, it’s not the case that
Severe chronic fatigue syndrome should be considered with "central idiopathic hypersomnia" possible comorbidity pathology
[edit]Severe chronic fatigue syndrome should be considered with "central idiopathic hypersomnia" possible comorbidity pathology (both are also "current scientific research pathology unknown and there are sleep disorders" diseases), both are prone to the existence of "drunk every night after sleep" this more significant characteristic, relatively rare characteristics. Moderate to mild chronic fatigue syndrome needs to consider a large number of "common diseases" and "rare diseases" in sleep disorders. Moonlight005 (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
A "severe chronic fatigue syndrome"/hypersomnia pathological hypothesis
[edit]In view of "severe chronic fatigue syndrome",idiopathic hypersomnia, atypical depression, type 2 narcolepsy whose pathology is unknown in scientific research so far, a hypersomnia pathological hypothesis is that the small blood vessels next to the arousal control nucleus (Fudan University and other teams have replicated such arousal control nucleus through animal experiments) lead to excessive carbon dioxide, which becomes a natural 7*24 hours anesthetic, thereby causing complex symptoms such as lethargy. https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/627324913 https://iobs.fudan.edu.cn/70/66/c17248a421990/page.htm Moonlight005 (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is an English version of the pathological hypothesis analysis of "severe chronic fatigue syndrome"/idiopathic hypersomnia, which may be more intuitive for English users.
- Url:
- https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/690767363 or https://weibo.com/ttarticle/p/show?id=2309405033349046731031
- The title of the article is as follows:
- "Pathology of IH may be hyperlocalized carbon dioxide excess"、"An important subtype of idiopathic hypersomnia (also including idiopathic hypersomnia with unknown pathologies, narcolepsy type 2, hypersomnia depression, etc.) is likely to be the mathematical model and analysis of the pathology of hypothalamus and other parts controlling ultra-small vascular lesions (such as blockage) of the awakening nerve nuclei leading to excessive carbon dioxide in a small range".
- Moonlight005 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- This does not seem to be discussed in high-quality review articles, so I do not think it deserves a mention here. It is unclear if these links are to scientific articles or more to a blog-type article. For medical content, sources need to meet the criteria as described in WP:MEDRS, which in summary means they should be recent and secondary (a review). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your communication and I would like to further explain this pathological hypothesis. The current pathological hypotheses (or merely guesses rather than analyses) of severe chronic fatigue syndrome and idiopathic hypersomnia are basically based on infections (such as viruses, bacteria, etc.), but ignore the more common causes of brain disease such as cerebral vascular blockage, and have not made substantial progress in pathology to date. So here speculation and analysis (have a lot of analysis, specific see link) super local (beside cerebral awakening control nuclei) of small vascular lesions (further cause excessive carbon dioxide, excess carbon dioxide just become the body's natural 7 * 24 hours of endogenous real-time anesthetic) I think maybe is a very worth exploring a pathology.
- As I said earlier:Severe chronic fatigue syndrome should be considered with "central idiopathic hypersomnia" possible comorbidity pathology (both are also "current scientific research pathology unknown and there are sleep disorders" diseases), both are prone to the existence of "drunk every night after sleep" this more significant characteristic, relatively rare characteristics. Moonlight005 (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Severe chronic fatigue syndrome and idiopathic hypersomnia should both be rare conditions (it is now certain that idiopathic hypersomnia is a rare condition).
- The progress in the study of rare disease pathology is often slow due to the lack of sufficient patient data and research funding.
- The pathological hypothesis proposed here is put forward by a patient based on his own feelings and retrieval of papers. So far, it has been freely shared publicly for a year or two, but there is still no substantive feedback from scientific research institutions (such as leave a message for feedback or email replies). It can be seen that the pathological hypothesis of rare diseases is easily ignored, and it is expected that the patient community concerned about "severe chronic fatigue syndrome/idiopathic hypersomnia" will try to communicate this pathological hypothesis to scientific institutions so that they will try to reproduce it in animal experiments. Moonlight005 (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the scientific community hasn't taken note of the hypothesis, it's way too early to include it on Wikipedia. It needs to be covered in reviews, before it's considered sufficiently important to include. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- To convey the pathological hypothesis to the severe chronic fatigue syndrome/sleep "basic research related to the scientific research institutions, others (e.g. "Severe Chronic fatigue syndrome/idiopathic hypersomnia" related patient population) have any good Suggestions? Moonlight005 (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- As Femke said, this is not something we should currently include. We're an encyclopedia, so we base our writing on what's already been established and proven. There is certainly value in hypotheses that haven't been proven or widely recognized, but there are better places to discuss these novel ideas, like journals. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the scientific community hasn't taken note of the hypothesis, it's way too early to include it on Wikipedia. It needs to be covered in reviews, before it's considered sufficiently important to include. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- This does not seem to be discussed in high-quality review articles, so I do not think it deserves a mention here. It is unclear if these links are to scientific articles or more to a blog-type article. For medical content, sources need to meet the criteria as described in WP:MEDRS, which in summary means they should be recent and secondary (a review). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Note about FAC
[edit]Unless there are any objections or further suggested improvements, I plan to nominate within the next 10 days. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Suggestion Can we add G93.32 to the med resources navbox? (Please note, my browser is saying the security certificate for the external lookup site expired on 15 July 24.) Haven't boldly added as I gather the previous ICD-10-CM codes were removed following discussion that noted they had been retired/replaced. Given that the 5th characters are not present in WHO's international version of the classification, however, I feel it would have been better update G93.3 to G93.32 rather than remove it in favour of the G93.3 code within ICD-10. (If it weren't for the 5th character, I would be in total agreement for not duplicating G93.3)
- Here's the markup if there's agreement to "restore":
| ICD10CM = {{ICD10CM|G93.32}}
- Little pob (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I get the same issue with my browser. Shall we wait until the website is functional before we include the link? Content-wise, I'm very happy to include it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Found out that CDC has an "official" lookup tool. Rather than wait for the "dead" service to renew their security certificates, I've changed the template to point to CDC's search function instead. Little pob (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I get the same issue with my browser. Shall we wait until the website is functional before we include the link? Content-wise, I'm very happy to include it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Citations in the lead
[edit]Would it be reasonable to remove some of the citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE? I'm hesitant to make any major changes since I understand the contents of the lead could technically be considered complex/controversial enough to warrant citations.CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit: I just now realized this has already been addressed but no conclusion seemed to be reached. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- From the perspective of having an easier ride at FAC I would be okay if somebody cuts the citations. However, this is one of those articles where the balance MOS:LEADCITE describes probably falls more towards not cutting citations further. This was historically and possibly still one of the most contested diseases out there. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Historically in this article, almost every item in a sentence that hasn't been sourced has been challenged, removed, changed or tagged frequently. For the sake of having a more stable article it would probably be better to leave the citations. Ward20 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's understandable. I think it'a probably best if it's just left as is. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
IMO the article is now too clinical or vague in some aspects, and does not plainly describe the impact on persons with the illness
[edit]There has been much article improvement with removal of extraneous information and better citations, but it has lost some important plainly presented information about the impact on persons with the illness. The lead sentence should first say "ME/CFS is a complex, disabling, chronic illness."[1][2] An older version of the article was similar.[3] Serious long-term illness is vague and understated. "The reduced ability to perform pre-illness activities" is part of the three primary required symptoms.[4] It should be stated implicitly in the lead, not implied by other symptoms.
Physical functioning and Cognitive functioning sections from older versions are no longer in the artile.[5] I realize there were a lot of older sources in the sections, but, in some cases, the sections better described "how" the physical and mental aspects of the illness affect day to day activities, social and economic status of people with ME/CFS. Much of this is presented in the present Severity sections, but it's so clinically described I have difficulty relating to it. There are three sentences describing quality of life, mostly in a statistical manner, but it doesn't adequately and plainly describe the social and economic devastation upon people and families, IMO. Ward20 (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've put back the sentence I removed on reduced ability to do task from the IOM definition. I removed it as part of a FAC comments. I agree it's a bit vague if you read it without understanding it's part of one of the definitions of ME/CFS, but don't feel too strongly about it.
- I can live with disabling instead of serious. A previous person removed serious as they felt it wasn't neutral in the other direction. The word complex seems overly technical to me. What does a general reader see if they read that word? It ME/CFS more complex than other neurological diseases? Or does it only seem that way as the heterogeneity and the cause haven't been worked out quite? For instance, the WASF finding could be a simple explanation.
- As for the severity section: I'm all open for suggestions. I thought I had removed the more academic parts of cognitive dysfunction (previously functioning) and severity (previously mostly physical functioning). I think the opening sentences may be overly abstract / too clinical? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair points. I believe the "complex" wording comes from the point of view that the illness is described as systemic[6] or multisystem[7] affecting many body parts.[8] When a patient sees a doctor about their symptoms they can list headaches, memory problems, cognition problems, joint pain, muscle pain, sleep problems, tender or swollen lymph nodes, brain fog, dizziness, balance problems, muscle weakness, tiredness, rashes, spontaneous bruising, low-grade fevers or alternately low body temperature, sore throat, neck stiffness, blurry vision, heart palpitations, mood swings, clumsiness, sensitivities to chemicals noise and light, night sweats, digestive issues, shortness of breath and others.[9] Frankly, a doctor feels overwhelmed seeing all these symptoms, or assumes the patient is mentally ill. Publications that talk about symptoms from all body parts are patient publications, or books by doctors treating many patients such as Dr. Bell, or Dr. Hyde.[10][11]. Patients realize they have to limit the list symptoms to maintain credibility, and the medical journal articles authors do also. The Wiki article lists individually many of the affected bodily systems, but it's academically described, so it loses some of the overall illness complexity and impact, IMO.
- I think the same issue occurs with the new publications about severity that talk academically about the illness. I will look at newer MEDRS publications of practicing physicians to see if I can find material from the patient perspective.
- The Severity section might be changed to Illness severity to be a bit more clear. Ward20 (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're on to something with the complexities needing to be described better in the symptoms section. The DecodeME questionaire is probably the best one for this. Not a review, but N is possibly larger than all other surveys combined in symptom burden. Still, ideally we find a source that is more generally acceptable.
- What makes you say illness severity is clearer? I don't disagree, but I can't think of something that it can be confused for at the moment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- For examples, I can think of symptom severity, disability severity, fatigue severity, reduction in quality of life severity, and they may or may not be congruent. Talking about the overall illness in the section, the title might as well state that.
- With disability in the leading sentence I agree it's a reasonable compromise to remove the sentence about pre-illness activities, although it then puts more emphasis on the fatigue symptom, which the new definition is trying to move away from. But I think it is an improvement and Rome wasn't built in a day. Ward20 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Description genetics in lead
[edit]I'm running most changes through the talk page before implementation because of the featured article effort. After reading the review[12] I believe a small change in wording will be a more accurate and concise representation. Some studies found significant genetic associations with the illness, but have not been replicated.
From:"It can run in families, but no genes that contribute to ME/CFS have been found."
To:"It can run in families, but no genes that increase the risk of becoming ill with ME/CFS have been confirmed." Ward20 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any reason not to just replace the word “found” with “confirmed” in the first sentence, for brevity? Innisfree987 (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are there candidate genes which await confirmation? Bon courage (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, from the cited source, "Two independent HLA types tagged by HLA-C*07:04 or HLA-DQB1*03:03 were recently shown to be significantly associated with ME/CFS status (Canadian consensus criteria) (30). These alleles are each carried by ~ 10% of ME/CFS individuals and alter risk by ∼1.5–2.0-fold. If these results are independently replicated then they indicate that genetic differences in the human immune system alter risk for ME/CFS." Ward20 (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so maybe "It can run in families, and genetic factors are suspected" ? Bon courage (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- i am ok with either of Innisfree987 or Bon courage's suggestions. After thinking about it, my main issue is with "no genes that contribute to ME/CFS have been found" because it may be interpreted that studies have shown no relationships, which is not correct. Ward20 (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so maybe "It can run in families, and genetic factors are suspected" ? Bon courage (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, from the cited source, "Two independent HLA types tagged by HLA-C*07:04 or HLA-DQB1*03:03 were recently shown to be significantly associated with ME/CFS status (Canadian consensus criteria) (30). These alleles are each carried by ~ 10% of ME/CFS individuals and alter risk by ∼1.5–2.0-fold. If these results are independently replicated then they indicate that genetic differences in the human immune system alter risk for ME/CFS." Ward20 (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are there candidate genes which await confirmation? Bon courage (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I like your original suggestion. I suspect saying a gene "increase[s] the risk of becoming ill" is clear to more people than saying it "contribute"s to a disease. The discussion on "found" vs. "confirmed" I have no opinion on. Ajpolino (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's a subtlety here: by my reading researchers have not yet confirmed an association (and are looking for evidence); a causal effect would be a further step even beyond that. This discussion makes me think Wikipedia is smudging the difference. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bon courage would you please expand on what you mean by smudging the difference? There are plenty of sources that state the illness can run in families, and yes, I agree genetic association has not yet been confirmed. I believe the present sentence tries to describe this, but can it be improved? Ward20 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the article invokes genes that "contribute to" this condition, and above the suggestion is to say a gene that "increase[s] the risk of becoming ill". But (from my limited reading) the search is on merely for a gene association. This may not be causative. Bon courage (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- So I guess the issue is that an increased risk factor may equal causation? It is my understanding causation requires the causal factor be both "necessary" and "sufficient" to the outcome. I don't think increased risk factor meets that criteria. It's just a statistical association AFAIK. Plus the sentences state the opposite, agreeing with the source, no gene association has been found/confirmed. Ward20 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; if sources are careful about this distinction Wikipedia should be too. It seems an association is suspected, but not (yet) confirmed. It's too soon to be saying anything implying cause and effect, it seems from the sources. Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Either way, both the original and Ward's "but no genes that increase the risk of becoming ill... have been confirmed" are true statements. My impression is the long truth is "There have been several reports of gene variants associated with ME/CFS; these reports don't all agree with each other. There's currently no mainstream agreement on what gene variants are associated with ME/CFS. Unsurprisingly, there's therefore no mainstream agreement on what gene variants if any could causatively contribute to ME/CFS." Since that's confusing and probably undue detail, Femke and Ward have summarized it to a single sentence, focusing on just the last (most clinically relevant) part. Ajpolino (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; if sources are careful about this distinction Wikipedia should be too. It seems an association is suspected, but not (yet) confirmed. It's too soon to be saying anything implying cause and effect, it seems from the sources. Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- So I guess the issue is that an increased risk factor may equal causation? It is my understanding causation requires the causal factor be both "necessary" and "sufficient" to the outcome. I don't think increased risk factor meets that criteria. It's just a statistical association AFAIK. Plus the sentences state the opposite, agreeing with the source, no gene association has been found/confirmed. Ward20 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the article invokes genes that "contribute to" this condition, and above the suggestion is to say a gene that "increase[s] the risk of becoming ill". But (from my limited reading) the search is on merely for a gene association. This may not be causative. Bon courage (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bon courage would you please expand on what you mean by smudging the difference? There are plenty of sources that state the illness can run in families, and yes, I agree genetic association has not yet been confirmed. I believe the present sentence tries to describe this, but can it be improved? Ward20 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's a subtlety here: by my reading researchers have not yet confirmed an association (and are looking for evidence); a causal effect would be a further step even beyond that. This discussion makes me think Wikipedia is smudging the difference. Bon courage (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems like everyone is in agreement as to what the source[13] indicates. But I don't see a solid consensus about what wording best conveys it. So I'm going to list the original wording and suggestions, and ask for comments about which is best, or alternately any other improvements to the wording. I'm sure there are a lot of effective ways to describe this.
1.) "It can run in families, but no genes that contribute to ME/CFS have been found." (present wording)
2.) "It can run in families, but no genes that increase the risk of becoming ill with ME/CFS have been confirmed." (alternate)
3.) "It can run in families, but no genes that contribute to ME/CFS have been confirmed." (alternate)
4.) "It can run in families, and genetic factors are suspected" (alternate)
Asked for more input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine here.[14] Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think 2 and 3 summarize the current evidence best. If I had to pick between the two, I would go with 3 only because it rolls off the tongue better. I agree that changing the wording to reflect the fact that studies have been done but we aren't currently in a position to confirm the involvement of genetics is wise. Most autoimmune disorders (assuming you believe that ME/CFS is at least partially autoimmmune) in general do have some form of genetic link but don't have the traits we usually see with genetic disorders (e.g., onset at birth, clear forms of inheritance), and it's more of a risk factor than a cause. From what I understand, the consensus is similar with ME/CFS. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with CWTATDTM. If pressed I might slightly prefer #2 since the implications are clearest. But both are just fine. Ajpolino (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe number three has consensus, and it's closest to the wording that's presently in the article, so I'm going to implement it. Ward20 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of the words "crashes" and "flare-ups" in lead
[edit]These two terms are used in different sentences in the lead. This "crash" can last hours or days to several months. 'Pacing of activities can help avoid flare-ups, and counselling may help in coping with the illness.
The terms are defined later in the Core symptoms section, "Extended periods of PEM, commonly referred to as "crashes" or "flare-ups", can lead to a prolonged relapse"
Since these are basically mostly used by patients, would it be better to use more common wording only in the lead? Specifically, I'm thinking of relapse instead of crash and worsening of symptoms instead of flare-ups.
Thoughts please. Ward20 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do like worsening symptoms rather than flare-ups (which I don’t really hear used either colloquially or in the literature). I’m not sure relapse and crash are interchangeable though. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see your point. Would this be an improvement? (The hallmark symptom is a worsening of the illness which starts hours to days after minor physical or mental activity.) "People with ME/CFS may call this a "crash", and it can last hours or days to several months." It gives a bit more context to the term. Ward20 (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured article candidates
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- GA-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- GA-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- GA-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles
- GA-Class Alternative medicine articles
- GA-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- GA-Class women's health articles
- Mid-importance women's health articles
- WikiProject Women's Health articles
- GA-Class neuroscience articles
- Mid-importance neuroscience articles