Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): D. Doan, A.Chhen01, M.DuranUCSF, A.Kumar, UCSF.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 June 2021 and 27 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Daniel.c.oliveira, C.Chung, Future PharmD, CCarlsonn, Vguan1. Peer reviewers: RLUUCSF.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unclear

First step towards clarity is to actually define it in a formal way.

Second step is to give some numerical data, including over time. .

Third is to explain the hypotheses why the men actually have a higher death rate; most of the article is explainwhy women have morediseases.

Fourth is to explain what the bias mentioned in the last section is, including numbers

Fifth is to get the baboons into a separate clause about studies in non-human animals.

Sixth is to give some more exact historical background DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should also comply with WP:MEDRS as best it can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged this to make it a little easier to know where to stick some information.

Sewblon, there aren't very many links to other articles. Not everyone will know what a Mortality rate is, or what Hormone replacement therapy is. Would you like to add some WP:LINKs to some key terms in the article? (If a word gets repeated, then just one link on the first instance is usually enough.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2021 Group 8

Plan to rearrange the article information so that relevant topics/details are grouped for clarity. CCarlsonn (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plan to add more content to "Female Survival Advantage" and "Male Morbidity Advantage" body articles to better define concepts and connect their relevance in the Health Survival Paradox. --C.Chung, Future PharmD (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added a citation and am testing this talk feature to see if I can sign my name Daniel.c.oliveira (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence needs a citation: "Most countries report higher rates of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in women compared to men." Daniel.c.oliveira (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following needs a citation: "Most countries report higher rates of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in women compared to men. However, the difference in CKD rates may be due to the longer life expectancy of women, as kidney function declines with age. Although more women are diagnosed with CKD, among individuals diagnosed with CKD who are not on dialysis treatment, the men exhibit greater mortality rates compared to women." Daniel.c.oliveira (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference List Review

All group members collaboratively reviewed all references for predatory publishers, timeliness, and credibility. Previous to edit, references 1 and 3 were duplicated. Duplicate was removed, and an active link to open access source (BMJ) was used. About 15 citations were reformatted. C.Chung, Future PharmD (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by Group 24

Overall, I believe the group improved the quality and content of this article. The flow of information is organized, and the sections included are expanded upon nicely. All of the information included in the article has a citation, so this legitimizes the article much more. The articles added are secondary reviews, with many of them from scientific medical journals, making them good sources for citations. I believe the introduction gives a clear and concise look into the remaining information in the article.

The article keeps a neutral tone, and the language is consistent with guidelines. The neutral tone can be confirmed through not favoring the outcomes of a particular gender, and presenting the findings of each review with no opinion.

As for improvement, there is a repetition within the article for the mention of women having two X chromosomes as a biological factor for the paradox that I do not see as a necessary repeat, but that is open for interpretation. The first claim in "potential bias" is based on an author manuscript and source that requires institution access, so this could be an area of potential improvement as well. Rfortney (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the group was able to complete their goals of improving the article. The goal of adding more information on female survival advantage was completed and well written. The group was also able to add more secondary references with open access and added missing citations from the article. The article was written with neutral language and and provides balanced information about the paradox as well as a potential bias portion. Currently some improvements can be made with citations. Citation # 23 for "Gender differences in Mental Health" should be fixed. The link directs to a page that is not found. Citation for "Why women live longer than men: Sex differences in longevity" was cited multiple times as #43 and #47. For information rearrangement, the social and biological factors section contains genetic information about the paradox that may be better placed into the genetic and physiological factors section. RLUUCSF (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group 8's edits substantially improved the article. Their lead section describes the topic in a straightforward, understandable manner given that their topic is a paradox, even explicitly explaining why the topic is paradoxical in lay language. Their article is structured in a logical order, beginning with the early accounts of the Health Survival Paradox in literature dating as early as the 18th century. The article then goes into certain factors that are thought to contribute to the paradox, then into the certain advantages women and men have in survival and morbidity, respectively. At the end, the article highlights some and potential biases of the paradox that can be taken into final consideration when formulating subjective viewpoints on the topic.

Group 8's goals were to rearrange the components of the article for clarity, to add content to a few of the subsections to better define and connect concepts, and to add citations to the article. I believe that they were successful in completing these goals to better improve the Health Survival Paradox article. The article was quite easy to follow and the data included were clearly presented; I also felt that the information included by Group 8 was relevant to understanding the topic.

Group 8 presented their many reliable sources in a neutral way, giving readers a good picture of the data regarding the Health Survival Paradox. Not only did they present the information they found in studies, but they also addressed limitations of the studies. For example, under Social and Biological Factors, it was stated that "women tend to have better prognosis due to the presence of estrogen receptor beta," and they further went on to say, "However, this is a continued study that may be due to biological factors—such as..." This is just one of many examples throughout the article of the neutral tone that Group 8 presents in their work. R. Salonga UCSF (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made by Group 8 have greatly improved the article. They met their goals of arranging the article, elaborating on certain sections, and adding necessary citations that were missing. The group also added a Background and History section and Psychological Factors section which are both important additions to better understand the context of this article. They also made sure to include language that supports diversity and inclusion. They avoided using words like “patients” or “cases” when editing the article and did not use first or second person perspective. The only issue I had was not being able to be directed to the “Gender differences in Mental Health” page. I believe the citation needs to be fixed as mentioned above by my peer. Overall, the edits added to the article have been well organized, clear, and consistent with guidelines. R. Mohsin, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]