Talk:Mathematical modeling of electrophysiological activity in epilepsy

Article title

The article has been renamed (Hypersynchronization of electrophysiological activity in epilepsy: Mathematical modeling and quantitative metrics) to clarify its main subject and to clarify its difference from other articles about epilepsy. Please note that:

1. This article is different from other pages about epileptic seizures, which provide general and/or medical information about epilepsy. In contrast, the present article is the only page that describes main principles of mathematical modeling and quantitative analysis of hypersynchronization. There is no overlap between this article and other articles about epilepsy, because none of the other articles describes this new area of mathematical neuroscience. This area is important, because it provides theoretical background and quantitative metrics for predicting the speed/area(s) of the brain that are affected by seizure activity. Therefore, it can be useful for an understanding of the electroencephalographic (EEG) features of seizure activity, particularly, in subjects with chronically implanted EEG electrodes, predicting its spread, as well as for guiding intracranial procedures/surgeries.

2. This article is based on peer-reviewed publications, which have been cited in the scientific literature hundreds of times. Furthermore, this Wikipedia article has been reviewed and enthusiastically supported by several world renowned experts in mathematical neuroscience/epilepsy.

3. To avoid ambiguity, the tag "WikiProject Medicine|class=start|importance=low" has been removed, because the subject of this article does not appear to be within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Although the subject and content of this article may appear too technical for a general audience without a mathematical/physical background, its content is easily understandable for anyone with a basic knowledge of sophomore level differential equations.

4. Since publication on Wikipedia four months ago, this article has generated strong interest and received hundreds of "hits" from researchers, engineers, physicists and mathematicians working in the fields of neuroscience and epilepsy around the world. Dalli 2013 (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The title has been changed to "Mathematical modeling of large-scale, hypersynchronous electrophysiological activity in epilepsy" to make it more accurate and representative of article's content. Please note that the term "mathematical modeling of electrophysiological activity" can be applied to models of individual neurons and small groups of neurons, which are beyond the scope of this article. Similarly, the term "electrophysiological activity in epilepsy" is very broad and may be used to describe a number of changes in electrophysiological activity, which are beyond the scope of this article. Dalli 2013 (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The title has been shortened ("Mathematical modeling of large-scale electrophysiological activity in epilepsy") to address Editor's comment that the title was too verbose.Dalli 2013 (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The title of this article is still way too long. In addition, the excessive detail of the title suggests the subject of the article may be too narrow. Why not rename it to mathematical modelling of epilepsy or computational models of epilepsy and broaden the scope of the article somewhat. Boghog (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice

I suggest reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not very carefully, and thinking about how it applies to this page, and then revising the page accordingly. Editors have previously criticized this page as being, amongst other things, like an essay: [1], and that criticism needs to be take to heart. It reads as though it is making an argument, concluding that the modeling is correct, the way that a review article or perspectives piece in a scientific journal would do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a journal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. We have revised the last section per your advice.Dalli 2013 (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Good! I looked at those revisions, and they are a step in the right direction. Something else, closely related, occurs to me, about the scope of the page. Obviously, there are other mathematical models of neuronal activity in epilepsy, in the scientific literature. To some extent, you have defined this page to be specifically about this model. But, again, since this is an encyclopedia article rather than an article in a professional journal, it would be more appropriate to broaden the scope of the page to include other models as well. There could be a section about modeling large-scale activity, resembling what there is now, but there could also be sections on more localized model circuits, and so forth. Again, the key idea through all of this is that the page is a Wikipedia article, and not an article in a journal. The more the page can be brought into line with that expectation, the better it is protected against deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for expansion

It would be a good idea to expand this page to include modeling of small scale activity in epilepsy as well, in which case the page could be moved to Mathematical modeling of electrophysiological activity in epilepsy. That would be a much more encyclopedic article, and it would avoid problems with the WP:UNDUE policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with moving to the above name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay moved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very happy to see more editors watching this page, because until now it has mostly been Dalli and me. The page started out within WP:WikiProject Neuroscience, which is how it came to my attention, but Dalli objected to having it assessed as low priority, etc., so I tried moving it to WP:WikiProject Mathematics and leaving it unassessed, and that's the real reason it came to have "mathematical modeling" in the page name. (I even had to deal with a small edit war over the oldprodfull tag at the top of this talk page.) There are so many ways in which the current page runs afoul of WP:NOT. I believe that the page currently remains very much hampered by being essay-like, and by focusing much too narrowly on one set of analyses of "large-scale" activity, with a series of equations and arguments for their justification, when the available source material spans both large-scale and local-circuit analyses. The page could also be expanded to include the underlying experimental neuroscience/neurology. I'm not sure whether the title should ultimately remain about modeling, or should instead be about synchrony in epilepsy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This is low priority because it's a focused sub field for applied mathematics. That's more or less expected for a specific topic of application - applied methods or general areas of application (e.g., mathematical biology) would be mid-importance. WP:WPMATH's scale is defined without ambiguity: WP:MATHASSESS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's low priority for pretty much any WikiProject. That's not a disparagement of the subject matter or of the authors of the cited sources. These assessments are purely an internal matter of Wikipedia setting editing priorities. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to give you a start by rewording the analysis section - question marks are usually best avoided in articles altogether unless it's a quote. It helps to think a about how a documentary might articulate a topic you're writing about - the tone is typically the same as an encyclopedia. As for the stuff to add to this, a topical overview of other models http://www.seizure-journal.com/article/S1059-1311(12)00224-5/fulltext is probably what you'd need to have adequate coverage of the article's topic - the same level of detail is probably unnecessary, though it would be nice to have. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that all of what you did has been very helpful. In thinking about the revisions you made to the tag at the top of the page, I'd even suggest broadening the scope beyond what it says there, to include more experimental electrophysiology, beyond the modeling. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)