Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →CT / MRI viewer: Reply |
Inkian Jason (talk | contribs) →Corinne Peek-Asa draft at Articles for Creation: new section |
||
Line 312: | Line 312: | ||
::I think this would be particularly interesting on [[CT scan]], because it gives people an idea of what the results are. For that page in particular, I'd love to see a head-to-toe scan with a few labels (spine, lungs, liver?), so they can stay oriented. |
::I think this would be particularly interesting on [[CT scan]], because it gives people an idea of what the results are. For that page in particular, I'd love to see a head-to-toe scan with a few labels (spine, lungs, liver?), so they can stay oriented. |
||
::Also, I wonder whether this could be integrated into MediaViewer. [[User:MarkTraceur|MarkTraceur]], do you know a multi-part image has ever been considered there? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
::Also, I wonder whether this could be integrated into MediaViewer. [[User:MarkTraceur|MarkTraceur]], do you know a multi-part image has ever been considered there? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Corinne Peek-Asa draft at Articles for Creation == |
|||
On behalf of the [[University of California, San Diego]], I have submitted a '''[[Draft:Corinne Peek-Asa|draft article]]''' about American epidemiologist [[Corinne Peek-Asa]] (''red-linked in [[List of members of the National Academy of Medicine|this list]] and at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships|WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships]]'') as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Sharing a notice here in case any WikiProject Medicine participants are interested in taking a look. Thanks! [[User:Inkian Jason|Inkian Jason]] ([[User talk:Inkian Jason|talk]]) 17:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:33, 1 July 2024
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.
- Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
- Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
- Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (
~~~~
). - Threads older than 30 days are automatically archived.
- Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list
List of archives | |
---|---|
|
This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Free access to high-quality sources
If you need access to books or journals from these publishers:
- Taylor & Francis
- Springer
- Nature
- De Gruyter
- American Psychiatric Association
- Perlego (online library, includes Wiley)
- Wiley (publisher) itself
- MIT Press Journals
- Oxford Reference
- Science (journal) (and others from American Association for the Advancement of Science)
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
- Journal of the American Medical Association
- Annual Reviews (publisher) (51 journals, all review articles)
- Cochrane Library
- Elsevier's ScienceDirect
- Future Medicine (and Future Science, which does pharmacology)
- SAGE Journals
- World Scientific
then please see Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
Note that you have to individually sign up for Perlego and MIT, and some of them (approximately the top half of this list) aren't integrated into the search box at the top of the page. In those cases, you have to find, e.g., the box for Nature, click on "Access collection", and search their website directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I got approved for Perlego. So far, I've found a (complete, legal) copy of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). I recognize a few titles (e.g., The Royal Marsden Manual of Clinical Nursing Procedures, Neal's Medical Pharmacology at a Glance, Hoffbrand's Essential Haematology...), but there are several thousand recent books about health and medicine (including vet med and dentistry) on this website, and the search is designed for a student who has been assigned a specific textbook, so assembling a highlights reel is a little challenging.
- If anyone has a favorite book that they'd like to find, please post the name, and I'll see if it's in the list. I'm also willing to do searches for topics (e.g., 150 books on COVID, 22 books during the last five years on epilepsy, ), if you are working on an article and want to see whether it's worth the 60 seconds to apply (It is! And TWL still has almost two thousand unclaimed accounts available for Perlego, so you don't worry that you might taking something away from another editor if you sign up now). There are also books available in several other languages, in case anyone regularly edits at another Wikipedia. I think this is going to be a great resource for editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Does anyone need the 2021 edition of Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines in Psychiatry? TWL > Wiley > MPG.
- How about the 2024 edition of Rook's Textbook of Dermatology? Same song, second verse. Once you're logged in to the TWL system, then I think that this link will take you there. (This set is $610 today at Amazon, or free with TWL.)
- I've been working with the 2022 update to Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. Find your favorite chapters at TWL.
- Here are some more names:
- Burger's Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery
- The Cancer Handbook
- Comprehensive Physiology
- Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science
- Encyclopedia of Drug Metabolism and Interactions
- Handbook of Contemporary Neuropharmacology
- Handbook of Evidence‐Based Practice in Clinical Psychology
- International Textbook of Diabetes Mellitus
- Management of Genetic Syndromes
- Pharmaceutical Sciences Encyclopedia: Drug Discovery, Development, and Manufacturing
- Reviews in Cell Biology and Molecular Medicine
- TNM Online
- Wiley Handbook of Current and Emerging Drug Therapies
- This is not a complete list by any means. There are 200+ books on dentistry, 500 on health and healthcare, 2800+ on medical science, 275 on nursing and midwifery, 475 on veterinary medicine. No matter what you're writing about, there is likely to be a textbook or reference work here that is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hip replacement
I've just tagged the hip replacement article based on widespread inclusion of unsourced biomedical information. Given the importance of this procedure, editors may be interested in looking into this topic. Sunrise (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- did a few edits[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Help request
Hello, Mental health in South Korea is in need of significant expansion, and any help is appreciated. Mental health is a pretty significant issue in the country, and on articles like this we have a chance to make an impact by spreading needed awareness. Fortunately, there seems to be a decent amount of literature in the English language on the topic; if you can help out please do. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Dealing with Cochrane Review retractions
Hey all, seeking some knowledge from the experts here!
I've recently started RetractionBot back up, however there appears to be an edge-case I want to seek comment on in regards to Cochrane review papers.
Now, the Cochrane review appear to do odd stuff with replacing old papers and withdrawing the replacements, an example can be found here
In that example, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003498.pub3 has been marked as retracted due to being replaced by a new paper (doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003498.pub4). That paper has then been withdrawn in favour of the older version. For this reason, the citation is flagged up as retracted/replaced in both CrossRef and RetractionWatch, and the bot normally would try and add a {{retracted}} template to it.
I have supressed this for now, so any article published by Cochrane Review will be ignored, however I wanted to check...
- Is tagging as {{retracted}} desirable in these instances or is ignoring it the best way to go?
- Does anyone know if this is a common thing to happen?
- Are there any views on how to handle these? Detecting this sort of thing is possible if I do a check on crossref for the newer paper, however these withdrawn papers are not reported as retracted as they are not reported on another DOI/PMID.
Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think we used to have a Cochrane-specific bot; see User:JenOttawa#Cochrane Bot Updates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cochrane retraction notices are generally dumb in that database. However, a true retraction should be flagged, if possible.
- I think the following conditions would work, for Cochrane Reviews: if v+1 is retracted (e.g. pub4), but v is not (e.g. pub3), then ignore matches to v (e.g. pub3).
- Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- This Signpost story will be of interest to many here: RetractionBot is back alive. The userpage will have many relevant categories (all the unintentional citations categories especially need human review).
- Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Ketone bodies#Requested move 25 May 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ketone bodies#Requested move 25 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Highly malignant oligodendroglioma, grade IV
I would like to start this text "Highly malignant oligodendroglioma, grade IV" as an article. Where could I find more information, like glioblastoma? On anaplastic oligodendroglioma you can already see where there is already. Wname1 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Anaplastic oligodendroglioma -- CFCF (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- What's the distinction from glioblastoma? My understanding of the WHO criteria is that so far, most grade IV brain tumours are lumped into "glioblastoma". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Medulloblastoma or Subependymoma it also has nothing to do with glioblastoma. Wname1 (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/74412/74412.pdf?sequence=1 Page 47 + https://flexikon.doccheck.com/de/Oligodendrogliom?utm_source=www.doccheck.com&utm_medium=DC%2520Search&utm_campaign=DC%2520Search%2520content_type%253Aall&utm_content=DC%2520Search%2520anaplastisch%2520oligodia .German text. Wname1 (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- As per the current 2021 WHO classification, there's no grade 4 oligodendroglioma. There's also no anaplastic oligodendroglioma anymore, as stated in the template I placed at the top of the article. The sources you've linked are outdated and not MEDRS-compliant.
- This has been previously explained to at the articles talk page [2] and over at deWP [2]. MaligneRange (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/74412/74412.pdf?sequence=1 Page 47 + https://flexikon.doccheck.com/de/Oligodendrogliom?utm_source=www.doccheck.com&utm_medium=DC%2520Search&utm_campaign=DC%2520Search%2520content_type%253Aall&utm_content=DC%2520Search%2520anaplastisch%2520oligodia .German text. Wname1 (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Medulloblastoma or Subependymoma it also has nothing to do with glioblastoma. Wname1 (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- What's the distinction from glioblastoma? My understanding of the WHO criteria is that so far, most grade IV brain tumours are lumped into "glioblastoma". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Pandemic's over! (2024 edition)
- COVID-19 pandemic (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The annual push is on to have Wikipedia declare that the COVID-19 pandemic is over. One new argument this year is that the WHO is only saying there's a pandemic as they have a monetary interest in "dragging it out". More eyes could be useful. Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a neutral notification, and you nutpicked the arguments presented. The main argument is that experts disagree as to whether or not it is ongoing, so maybe the article should follow WP:NPOV and not take a side but mention the expert disagreement. It's going to be over eventually so you shouldn't be surprised it comes up again and again. Crossroads -talk- 17:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Perplexity's Take
Here is what Perplexity Pro (an LLM) has to say:
- The question of whether the COVID-19 pandemic is over is complex and multifaceted, with varying perspectives from health experts, organizations, and the public.
- Expert Opinions and Definitions
- 1. **World Health Organization (WHO)**:
- - The WHO declared an end to the COVID-19 public health emergency in May 2023 but continues to describe COVID-19 as a pandemic due to its ongoing global presence and impact[3][11].
- 2. **Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)**:
- - The CDC has shifted its focus from tracking cases to monitoring hospitalizations and deaths. While acknowledging that COVID-19 remains a public health threat, the CDC emphasizes the importance of vaccination and other preventive measures[12].
- 3. **Boston University Researchers**:
- - Experts from Boston University highlight that COVID-19 still causes significant illness and death worldwide. They argue that the disease's widespread nature and the millions of cases reported weekly justify its classification as a pandemic[1].
- 4. **Scientific American**:
- - Maria Van Kerkhove from the WHO notes that while the emergency phase is over, the pandemic status remains due to the virus's continued global circulation and impact[3].
- Public Perception
- 1. **Gallup Poll**:
- - A Gallup poll indicates that 59% of Americans believe the pandemic is over, although a similar proportion report that their lives have not returned to normal[4].
- Current Data and Trends
- 1. **Global and National Data**:
- - COVID-19 continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. For instance, the WHO reported over 774 million confirmed cases and more than seven million deaths globally as of March 2024[6].
- - In the U.S., COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths have decreased significantly from their peaks, but the virus still poses a risk, especially to vulnerable populations[12].
- 2. **Variants and Transmission**:
- - New variants, such as JN.1 and its descendants, continue to emerge and spread, indicating that the virus is still evolving and circulating widely[15].
- Conclusion
- While the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, the virus remains a significant global health threat. The WHO and other health experts continue to classify COVID-19 as a pandemic due to its widespread impact and ongoing transmission. Public perception varies, with many believing the pandemic is over, but data and expert opinions suggest that vigilance and preventive measures are still necessary to manage the disease's impact.
- Citations:
- [1] https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/is-covid-19-still-a-pandemic/
- [2] https://doh.wa.gov/data-and-statistical-reports/diseases-and-chronic-conditions/communicable-disease-surveillance-data/respiratory-illness-data-dashboard
- [3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rampant-covid-poses-new-challenges-in-the-fifth-year-of-the-pandemic/
- [4] https://news.gallup.com/poll/612230/four-years-say-covid-pandemic.aspx
- [5] https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases
- [6] https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-epidemiological-update-edition-166
- [7] https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-06-03/5-key-takeaways-from-faucis-covid-19-testimony
- [8] https://www.verywellhealth.com/covid-by-the-numbers-5083007
- [9] https://www.cdc.gov/forecast-outbreak-analytics/about/rt-estimates.html
- [10] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html
- [11] https://time.com/6898943/is-covid-19-still-pandemic-2024/
- [12] https://www.cdc.gov/ncird/whats-new/changing-threat-covid-19.html
- [13] https://apnews.com/article/fauci-covid-pandemic-origin-congress-a66625482f25824476ee315484790230
- [14] https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/global-covid-19-tracker/
- [15] https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-network/diagnostics/covid-19-variant-update/
- [16] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republicans-poised-grill-anthony-fauci-covid-19-response/story?id=110677611
- [17] https://covid.cdc.gov
- [18] https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/03/politics/fauci-testimony-house-hearing-covid-19/index.html
- [19] https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2024-05-03/what-to-know-about-the-latest-covid-19-milestone
- [20] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/02/fauci-covid-research-investigative-panel-00161109
- Jaredroach (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- As much as I would love for AI to make our lives easier, I don't think LLMs are at the point yet where their "opinions" are of any weight or help. Digging up citations could theoretically be useful, but even here they don't always represent them accurately. For example, it cites this Boston University article as saying that experts there support classification as a pandemic; however, reading it makes clear that two out of the three lean towards or outright say it is not a pandemic, while the third (Murray) seems to lean that it is, but even she acknowledges that definitions of the term vary by saying e.g.
this is where governments have flexibility in deciding whether we are in a pandemic.
This Time article is cited to refer to what is on WHO's website, but what other experts in it say (including WHO's COVID lead Maria Van Kerkhove) is totally ignored. Crossroads -talk- 16:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)- Still, it's interesting to see what the state of development is for LLMs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- As much as I would love for AI to make our lives easier, I don't think LLMs are at the point yet where their "opinions" are of any weight or help. Digging up citations could theoretically be useful, but even here they don't always represent them accurately. For example, it cites this Boston University article as saying that experts there support classification as a pandemic; however, reading it makes clear that two out of the three lean towards or outright say it is not a pandemic, while the third (Murray) seems to lean that it is, but even she acknowledges that definitions of the term vary by saying e.g.
- Update: There is a proposal to re-write the first couple of sentences, so that we can avoid saying either "the pandemic is" or the pandemic was". Please take a look if you're interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The page Prurigo simplex currently is a stub and there was an interesting conversation regarding the classification of it here. I'm not quite sure what to do with the page. The 2020 guidlines for Prurigo made no mention of Prurigo simplex. This article does a pretty good job of summerizing the controversy surrounding the term but I'll mention some of the highlights here:
"Subacute prurigo, characterized by small papulovesicles, is the most controversial category of prurigo (1, 4). Besides many eponyms, it is also known as prurigo simplex, prurigo simplex subacuta or urticaria papulosa chronica perstans (1, 2). Lately, the classification of prurigo into acute, subacute and chronic forms has been questioned (5). It is discussed whether subacute prurigo (prurigo simplex) belongs to the prurigo group of diseases, or if it is just one of many papular eruptions. In American literature, it is better known as “itchy red bump” disease. The term was coined by Ackerman (6), who described it as a “maddeningly pruritic, persistent condition that clinically resembles dermatitis herpetiformis with histologic features similar to papular urticaria”."
"Another controversial issue is whether prurigo simplex or “itchy red bump” disease is a clearly defined entity or a variant of chronic prurigo. It has been suggested that it is a transitional stage of prurigo that transforms from an acute to a chronic form"
It seems to me that Prurigo simplex should be a redirect to Prurigo, however the page Prurigo needs to be expanded as well (which I am happy to do).
I'm interesting in others thoughts on this topic. If anyone has anything to add or any opinions please let me know. For now I am going to focus on expanding Prurigo. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- As the editor who had stubbed the simplex article, I concur with the suggestion of making Prurigo the main article on the subject and redirecting Prurigo simplex to it. The latter seems to be a minor and likely obsolete category with a PubMed search for prurigo simplex/prurigo simplex subacuta/urticaria papulosa chronica perstans/subacute prurigo finding only one review article: the 2021 Wallengren article mentioned above, which too calls the category and definition controversial. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- For completeness sake, I'll note that I had checked the 12th (2016) edition of Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology, which is cited in wikipedia's Prurigo simplex article, and that that reference work devotes less than half a page to prurigo simplex calling it the "preferred term for the chronic itchy idiopathic dermatosis" while noting that "the term prurigo continues to lack nosologic precision." I don't have instant access to the current (13th) edition of Andrew's to check if it says anything different. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rook's Dermatology says only that "There is continuing debate about conditions such as prurigo simplex acuta or prurigo simplex subacuta and their nature remains to be properly investigated."
- Griffiths, Christopher E. M.; Barker, Jonathan; Bleiker, Tanya O.; Hussain, Walayat; Simpson, Rosalind C., eds. (2024-02-12). "Pruritus, Prurigo and Lichen Simplex: Psychological, Sensory and Neurological Disorders and the Skin". Rook's Textbook of Dermatology (10 ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119709268.rook081. ISBN 978-1-119-70921-3.
- This textbook is available to experienced editors at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library (under Wiley). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through Rook's led me this EADV consensus statement on chronic prurigo from 2018, which could be useful in further developing the Prurigo article and which says, "There was a discussion among experts regarding the spectrum of the so-called prurigo simplex – acute and subacute. It was noted that there is no clear definition of these two terms." Consistent with other sources we have seen so far. Abecedare (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding this. I'm going to wait till I expand the Prurigo article to include classifications before making the redirect. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through Rook's led me this EADV consensus statement on chronic prurigo from 2018, which could be useful in further developing the Prurigo article and which says, "There was a discussion among experts regarding the spectrum of the so-called prurigo simplex – acute and subacute. It was noted that there is no clear definition of these two terms." Consistent with other sources we have seen so far. Abecedare (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Lichen myxedematosus/Papular mucinosis
There seems to be an issue with the classification of Lichen myxedematosus/Papular mucinosis. The terms papular mucinosis, lichen myxedematosus, and scleromyxedema have all kind of been jumbled and I'm not sure how to classify them. Here's what I've found:
ICD-11 lumps the terms Lichen myxoedematosus, Papular mucinosis, and Scleromyxoedema all under the term Lichen myxoedematosus. [3]
MeshID lumps the terms Lichen myxoedematosus, Papular mucinosis, and Scleromyxoedema under the term Scleromyxedema.[4]
Orphanet lists Lichen myxedematosus as a group of disorders,[5] with the terms Atypical lichen myxedematosus,[6], Localized lichen myxedematosus (Orphanet uses Papular mucinosis as a synonym for Localized lichen myxedematosus),[7] and Scleromyxedema.[8]
Disease database lumps them all together as well.
However it seems that they are different disorders with different sources using different names. For example UpToDate uses Papular mucinosis for a synonym of Lichen myxedematosus.[9] This article[10] goes over the classifications and seems to imply that Papular mucinosis is a synonym fot Localized lichen myxedematosus, and that Scleromyxedema is a seperate disorder.
From what I understand it seems like generalized lichen myxedematosus is a synonym for scleromyxedema, Papular mucinosis is a synonym for Localized lichen myxedematosus and lichen myxedematosus is the the group of disorders.
Before I change any redirects I'd like to hear others input on the topic as it's quite confusing to me. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- [11]..I'd go with this(just my opinion)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- The disease database just lumps all of the terms together which doesn't make sense since they seem to be different disorders. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
AFIB Technology
Any thoughts on the AFIB Technology article? It looks distinctly promotional to me, though I have no subject-matter knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- It looks a bit overly detailed to me. If you're interested, I suggest re-writing the "one study found" paragraphs to be more in line with WP:MEDSAY.
- (My first thought was that it would be related to the Apple Watch health monitoring patent dispute, but it's not.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Andy, I noticed that NICE have withdrawn their guidance originally cited in the article. CV9933 (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Mary Fletcher#Requested move 12 June 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mary Fletcher#Requested move 12 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Idiopathic ulnar neuropathy at the elbow#Requested move 13 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 13:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Infoboxes changed?
Have the infoboxes for medical conditions been changed or is my computer just not working right? Is this a site wide thing or just that specefic template? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- @CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath, please tell me more. {{infobox medical condition}} hasn't been edited directly for a few months. Did you change your font size or zoom level? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- it seems to be a site wide issue but it has been fixed for me! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are many reports of problems at VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
How to deal with the overwhelming amount of pages with unsourced statements.
I think the majority of the active editors here know that WikiProject Medicine has an issue with unsourced statements in articles. I'm not blaming anyone; a lot of the citation issues come from editors not familiar with Wikipedia. Regardless of how this issue started, I think we need to have a conversation about how to fix it.
I've noticed that there are typically two different types of pages that have unspurced statements: pages that are almost completely unsourced (for example, 1q21.1 duplication syndrome), and pages that have one or two unsourced statements but are otherwise well cited (for example, 3-M syndrome).
For the first type of page, I believe it's best to do a quick literary search to see if you can find where the information came from; however, I've found that this is usually quite low-yeild, especially when the whole page is unsourced. I believe most of these pages need to be rewritten. Obviously, this is a time-consuming task, but something needs to be done about the issue.
For the second type of page, usually I can find where they got the statment by searching keywords from the unsourced statement in Google. When I can't find the original source, I think it's fair to delete the unsourced passage, assuming it is not somehow vital information (however, if it were vital information, there should be a source somewhere with that information).
I'm looking for other ideas, suggestions, advice, and knowledge on this topic. I'm still a fairly new editor, and I haven't worked much on correcting this problem, so if anyone with more knowledge could share their opinions, that would be great. I just want to emphasize that this is not me trying to bash any editors; I just think it's time we have a conversation about this very prevelant issue. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Are you thinking about the articles tagged as having no refs, such as these?
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm refering to any page with the citation needed template. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are over 12,000 WPMED-tagged articles with a {{fact}} tag somewhere in it. (There are more than half a million tagged articles overall.) That's a bit much to handle all at once.
- This link to Citation Hunt will give you just the ones that are in Category:Top-importance medicine articles. If you try that out and like it, we can set up another for Category:High-importance medicine articles, or perhaps using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's a great idea thank you! So far I've just been going through the list alphabetically. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm refering to any page with the citation needed template. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge proposal for Somatization disorder and Somatic symptom disorder.
I've started a discussion regarding the merging of Somatization disorder and Somatic symptom disorder here and I would really appreciate if others could give their input on the topic. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Village Pump discussion
There's a village pump discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Resources on severe mental illness pages that may be of interest to this project. I've given my thoughts there, but the participants of this project probably have the best judgement on this topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Expert attention needed
I've been working with Pete Nelson from UKY (and by "working with" I mean mostly doing some minor cleanup on his work) on User:WikiDan61/LATE which is intended to replace the current contents of Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy. As can be seen from the existing article, Nelson is clearly a recognized expert in the field for this condition. I got involved when he made a major wholesale edit to the article, basically blowing away the existing citations. Once I was able to mentor him through some Wikipedia basics, and help him with some article organization ideas, he has cleaned up the article (now living in my user space as a drafting location). I'd like to have someone from this project assess the present state of the draft and see if it is ready to be copied into place of the existing article. I might also need some Wikipedia expertise on how to do the merge to preserve the proper authorship attributions (his and my edits in my userspace). Thanks!! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Dan61. Just to clarify, I wrote the prior version as well, this is just an update to flesh it out a little bit and conform more closely to (what I understood to be) Wikipedia formating.
- Best regards,
- Pete Nelson Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Here's a cross-page diff of the sandbox vs current article, if anyone wants to take a look at the changes. It quadruples the amount of readable prose and doubles the number of sources cited. I haven't looked at the quality of the sources, but everything else looks good to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
New form of B12 deficiency discovered
A new form of B12 deficiency affects the nervous system only, with B12 levels remaining normal in the blood: Transcobalamin receptor antibodies in autoimmune vitamin B12 central deficiency - Pluvinage et al., 26 Jun 2024. I wonder if it merits a mention in B12 deficiency or even a standalone article. The condition reminds me of cerebral folate deficiency. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps "mooted" rather than "discovered". Any WP:MEDRS ? Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- So we have one confirmed case in humans reported by a primary source? Seems interesting and something to take note of, but all the same too soon for the encyclopedia to be rewritten. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we could justify a single sentence in Vitamin B12 deficiency#History ("A single case study claimed..."). I do not think that a standalone article is warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I find this very interesting, but am inclined to agree with WhatamIdoing, but I don't think we need to point out it was a "single" study, rather it makes sense to mention "A case study describes ...". Anyone able to understand what a case study is, should also inherently understand its limitations. CFCF (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography#Requested move 14 May 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography#Requested move 14 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Covid-Organics; contextualizing trial in predatory journal
Presently, Covid-Organics mentions a Phase III trial, published in a journal from Fortune Journals (who's apparently predatory per Beall's List), as if it was in a typical, credible journal, without further comment/context. I'm hoping someone with more experience and energy than me could e.g. add a sentence or two properly contextualizing the quality of the journal/trial. Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think you ought to feel free to just remove it. CFCF (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
CT / MRI viewer
We at Wiki Med Foundation have been working to develop a CT / MRI scan viewer. Currently it is functionally on EN WP as a trial and works fairly well on mobile and desktop. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- this is a very good idea, I believe this needs to be supported--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- That looks interesting. I think the UI needs a little more information. So first, for anyone who wants to take a look (do it!), just go to User:Doc James/CT scan viewer, and where it says "(requires turning on the gadget under preferences or this)" in the section heading, click on the word 'this'. (If you do that, you can test it without having to do anything to your prefs.) In the picture, a ► play button will appear. Click that.
- Then wait several seconds for all the images to load. In this instance, there are 248 images. It'll give you a vertical bar with a slider dot at the bottom. After everything's loaded, you can slide that up and down to step through the images. If you want to view it image-by-image, then look at the text (sideways) that says "← (177/248) →" and click on the individual arrows.
- I think this would be particularly interesting on CT scan, because it gives people an idea of what the results are. For that page in particular, I'd love to see a head-to-toe scan with a few labels (spine, lungs, liver?), so they can stay oriented.
- Also, I wonder whether this could be integrated into MediaViewer. MarkTraceur, do you know a multi-part image has ever been considered there? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Corinne Peek-Asa draft at Articles for Creation
On behalf of the University of California, San Diego, I have submitted a draft article about American epidemiologist Corinne Peek-Asa (red-linked in this list and at WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships) as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Sharing a notice here in case any WikiProject Medicine participants are interested in taking a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)