Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 171

Archive 165

←

Archive 169

Archive 170

Archive 171

Gustatory hyperhidrosis

After expanding Gustatory hyperhidrosis I'm starting to notice that most of the classification systems seem to list it as a synonym for Frey's syndrome. Before i make a redirect can anyone else find a clear distinction between the two.

Orpha entry, NORD entry, ICD11 classification, OMIM entry, MESH ID, Disease database entry. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

redirect--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Promotional edits relating to Cord blood.

I've recently got done with reverting a large amount of promotional editing relating to private cord blood banks across several articles, from a couple of single-purpose IP editors. These edits included non-WP:MEDRS sourcing, namedropping of particular companies, and cherry-picking quotes from various bodies to misrepresent their support for cord blood treatments. Here's a list of articles I found problems with:

• Amniotic stem cells
• Cell potency
• Cord blood bank
• Cord blood
• Cordlife
• Cryo-Save
• Developmental verbal dyspraxia
• Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
• Hematopoietic stem cell
• Ideational apraxia
• Matthew Schissler
• Motor neuron diseases
• Neurological disorder
• Prenatal care in the United States
• Regenerative medicine
• Stem cell
• Stem-cell therapy
• Tay–Sachs disease
• Umbilical cord

I think it is very likely that this is undisclosed paid editing. Please consider putting the affected articles on your watchlist to keep an eye out for more promo. - MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

probably [1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources for brain health and pollution / Vascular dementia

In case anyone is interested:

• [2]

A long list of sources for pollution and neurological conditions. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC);03:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we need some help. One of the sources being preferred in Vascular dementia is apparently a 24-year-old newsletter "article" from a local medical club. Just having someone tag or remove the outdated material (twenty-four years old!) would be helpful. There are only five current editors watching this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The Cass Review

The Cass Review is an important and much anticipated "independent review of gender identity services for children and young people" led by Hilary Cass, which was commissioned by NHS England in 2020 and is due to report tomorrow (10th April 2024). It is likely to generate a lot of news coverage, but hopefully also some professional responses too. The Wikipedia article was only created yesterday by User:Void if removed so likely isn't on many watchlists. It would be good if editors here could help over the coming days. Thanks. -- Colin°^Talk 13:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Chronic functional abdominal pain

I'm currently updating the page Chronic functional abdominal pain and I have questions about the article title.

The ICD11 lists it as functional abdominal pain syndrome.[3] However several article discuss renaming it to Centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome.[4]

I'm just wondering what name would be more appropriate here. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Since CMAP is mentioned in the first sentence of the lede it's probably not an issue worth worrying about, but WP:MEDTITLE guidance is always worth a read. CV9933 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the main problem I have with the current title is that it doesn't distinguish it as a syndrome or disease and that may lead to confusion. According to WP:MEDTITLE "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or an historical eponym that has been superseded." and the ICD-11 is recommended for disease names. The only thing is that the ICD-11 uses the term "functional abdominal pain syndrome" but newer literature including the Rome criteria uses the term " Centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome" CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

These types of discussions often lead to those who would propose that when searched, title A produced X hits and title B returned XXX hits therefore title B should be used. But MEDTITLE also tells us that some terminology is in flux and recently proposed names may not yet be widespread in adoption, from which one might infer that there is no rush and doing nothing for now is probably the best course of action. CV9933 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

My only problem with the current title is that it isn't commonly used in literature and isn't classified under any of the disease databases (for lack of better terms) that we use. WP:MEDTITTLE also specifies that "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name" which isn't true for Chronic functional abdominal pain. I think it would make more sense to rename it to "functional abdominal pain syndrome" as that seems to be the more recognized term and is what's used by the ICD-11 and because as you mentioned proposed names might not be widespread. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You could be bold and just change it with your rationale in the edit summary, or propose a move on the article talk page. If the latter, then use it as an opportunity to gain consensus to update the title to CAMPS. CV9933 (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I’ll change it tonight when I have the time to make sure all the names match. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Navel fetishism

Hi - this article seems to have attracted a number of dubious claims / sources. I tried to delete a number of unreliable sources, but I think this article needs some serious editing to make sure statements are backed up by WP:MEDRS-worthy sources, which definitely isn't the case now. Thank you! GnocchiFan (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

per the talk page you might want to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

MEDRS-related RfC

Note there is a RfC at

• Talk:Havana syndrome#Request for comment: Scope and sourcing

Which may be of interest to members of this noticeboard as it contains question about the application of MEDRS and invokes an 'Opposing view' for certain syndromes. Bon courage (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Cass Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all

A major review into trans healthcare, the Cass Review, has been published in the UK, I'd really appreciate if people with an understanding of medical research could read it, its currently a very edited article with quite high traffic. To put it mildly the report is being used by politicians and press to push for restrictions to healthcare provisions. The report has been criticised by academics and trans groups in the UK for issues with both its research methodology and its recommendations, but I don't have experience in writing about this kind of thing on Wikipedia.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

hi, I could be wrong but if you look two/three spots up its the same post, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you

Hi! I hope this is the right venue for this feedback. I have chronic medical problems that were slowly destroying my life, and none of my doctors could figure out what was going on or what to do about it. I have now identified some of my conditions and found treatments that help a great deal, and my doctors and I are working to understand my illness more clearly and improve my symptoms further. I finally get to start living a real life again, and I couldn't have done it without the tireless efforts of WikiProject Medicine contributors. I will be grateful forever, please keep up the great work. 174.21.188.119 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Question re medical terminology

There seems to be a debate over medical wording over at Talk:Death from laughter#"atonia" - link is broken, and word meaning?. Thought members of this WikiProject might be interested in this discussion, as I don't know how to rephrase the sentence to be clearer to the reader. – GnocchiFan (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

How do we welcome new medical editors? [2]

Reverts, inline tags, etc.

I believe this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1212897332

and the subsequent comments,e.g.,

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1213611691

warrant more discussion. I don't have time to come back to it yet, but perhaps others will do. Aside, I don't think the issue "How do we welcome new medical editors?" has been completely resolved. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC); 13:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Copied and continued from the closed thread above:

How do we welcome new editors? There's an essay (much of which I wrote): WP:Encourage the newcomers. It includes all the empirical evidence I could find on the question (if you find more, please add it). On account of said evidence, I think adding T209797 to Huggle might also be pretty effective. HLHJ (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks HLHJ. That’s a great essay. I’m especially amazed by the graphs, for example:

First message to new users (including vandals), by tool used. Reverts of new good-faith editors increased (from ~7% to ~20%) in 2007, and new editor retention dropped sharply.

I agree with you that adding the { { citation needed } } feature to Huggle may help. It will need other features like { { medref inline } } as welll. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think other tags are a good idea, too; I commented on T209797 to suggest a general tool for adding inline point & span tags. Anyone can add a comment or token; adding specific ideas about use cases might be quite useful.

I didn't actually make the graphs myself! It might be possible to remake that >decade-old graph live via Wikidata now. HLHJ (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep the graph needs update. The trend seemed to indicate that “Other bots” were becoming the major problem (not Huggle) in 2011? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Huggle is the problem; semi-automated editing countered an existential threat. Cluebot is, I think, also part of the solution; the third of those 2011 new users who were reverted by Cluebot were probably almost all vandals. Because the evidence says "inline-tagged new editors stay, reverted new editors leave", I think the problem is that it's now hard to inline-tag noob edits. This is not an intrinsic problem. It's hard to imagine a scenario where newcomers don't need semiautomated scrutiny. It's easy to imagine an interface where adding "cn" to a new edit is a single click.

The longstanding lack of semiautomated tagging capabilities is influencing our culture. Pre-2007, citation-needed tagging was very common. It was policy to tag only stuff you thought was unverifiable, and delete it only after giving others a chance to verify it (BLP excepted, it's still policy). Readers knew to distrust anything with a [[citation needed]] tag; it was part of pop culture.

Now, an increasing number of editors think they are expected to revert all probably-true but unsourced content (even on medieval Japanese furniture). It's rare to tag it first or talk to the contributing editor afterwards. I've been working on an explanatory template, contribs welcome.

The current interface marks new editors as pass/fail, and never as "imperfect, but means well and should improve". Whether a new editor will stay depends mostly on the fate of their first three or four edits. It's more a learning cliff than a learning curve. HLHJ (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Should I omit products that are no longer in clinical trials under a company even with conflicting info on Wikipedia?

I am creating a page for a biopharmaceutical company (no relation), and am currently looking for products that they have been doing clinical trials on so I can list them as products that are currently in their product pipeline.

However, there is one article I have found right now for which the responsibility for clinical trials on a drug has been transferred to another company (although there are probably more that I will have to find).

When I list the drugs currently in the product pipeline for that company, should I omit those being run through clinical trials under another company (where the clinical trials was originally being run under said company), even with conflicting info on Wikipedia?

CrSb0001 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@CrSb0001, is this the situation you're describing?

• Company A researched Wonderpam for a while.
• Company A transferred Wonderpam to Company B.
• The Wikipedia article on Wonderpam says Company A is researching it.

If so, I suggest that you correct the Wikipedia article on Wonderpam (to say something like "Company A did some research from 2018 to 2020, and transferred it to Company B in 2021", or whatever the accurate and up-to-date facts are) and that you mention Wonderpam in articles for both companies. Company A's should say "worked on from 2018 to 2020" (maybe in a ==History== or ==Timeline== section?) and Company B's should list it as a current pipeline item.

Also, if you're thinking of a list for pipeline items, I suggest that a list with more information than just the names would be helpful. Even something as short as "Wonderpam, new class of antibiotics" or "Wonderpam, entered phase II trials in 2022" would be more informative than the name alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is the situation I'm describing. Thank you.

CrSb0001 (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I kind of wonder how many drugs the average pharma company is researching at any given moment. Might be difficult to keep such a list up-to-date, and how long would the list become? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Student editing

FYI, heads up about student editing of medical articles (Medicine and Pharmacy is the subject). Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Manitoba/PHMD 2040 Service - Learning Spring 2024 (2nd term) --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Activity feed here --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is there a wrist pain page?

This is such a general page. And much of the information is negatively framed in an unhealthy ways. Ischyros7 (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Wrist pain looks like it would be a useful page for people who want general information or can't remember the name of a particular condition. Sometimes you just need to look down a list of possible names until you recognize the one that you're looking for. I'm not sure what you mean by "negatively framed". Mostly, I think it has so little information that there's no room for framing it.

@Zefr blanked a bunch of content a few months ago. (This is what I call treating Wikipedia like the children's game of Mother may I?: He blanked non-controversial content that he knew was accurate and appropriate, on the grounds that the cited source wasn't ideal. Most of us would have found a better source or tagged it with {{medrs}} instead.) It would probably be good to expand it again. We're missing articles on gymnast's wrist (which is really multiple conditions), so that's one place to start, if anyone's interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

That content had been added just a few hours before by someone who was clearly just doing so so they could spam links to a small practice's website. MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the cited source is not ideal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of Verywell Health for the Myolysis article

There is a request to add the Verywell Health page "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" (https://www.verywellhealth.com/myolysis-5189197) to the spam whitelist so that it can be cited in the Myolysis article. Verywell Health (RSP entry) was previously added to the spam blacklist in 2018 because links to Verywell sites had been spammed on Wikipedia. If this whitelisting request is successful, it would be possible for editors to link to this specific page on Wikipedia again.

The whitelisting request proposes citing "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" as a tertiary source to augment citations of two other sources that Verywell Health cites and summarizes, "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health) and "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital). I'd like to confirm whether this is an appropriate use of Verywell Health per WP:MEDPOP ("One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source.") before adding the article to the spam whitelist.

Please join the discussion at WT:SWL § "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" to share your input. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 05:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Calomel - should it be separated into medicine vs rock/mineral?

I made some edits to the page for the historical medicine calomel (that caused mercury poisoning) but the Wikipedia page for it is a strange mix of a page describing the mineral and a page about the medical uses. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about how to work with this kind of page could help here - should there be two separate pages? Lijil (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The Medicine section is too small to really warrant a separate page, and the calomel page overall isn't TOOBIG. I'd suggest framing the page around MOS:CHEM for compounds, which has a Uses section, so its medical use could be seen within that context. Klbrain (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak#Requested move 22 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2022–2023 mpox outbreak#Requested move 22 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

it has been closed with 'no consensus', thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Trodusquemine

I recently reverted some major changes to trodusquemine that a new editor made to this article because I thought that they were one-sided. Another editor has now restored those changes. I notice that there seems to be a history of conflict of interest problems and sockpuppetry associated with the article and that the most recent editor's username matches the last name of the lead author of newly added references. So maybe some more experienced editors can have a look? Thank you. Reba16 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Rolled back, and COI Welcome template added to ZASLOFF's talk page, given that Zasloff is an author of the cited article(s). The revision was also much worse than the original. Klbrain (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The reverts and rollbacks were not effective. Discussions are on the article and editor talk pages. The editor appears to have used multiple accounts and been blocked previously. Adding admin @DMacks: who has also reverted the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trodusquemine#The%20works%20of%20ZASLOFF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZASLOFF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whywhenwhohow#Trodusquemine

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Fatigue

Asto77 (talk · contribs) is looking for feedback on the Fatigue article. He posted a request on my talk page. I'm posting the request here for a wider audience. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

it seems the article sections need to be reorganized and there are sections that have many primary sources that need to be replaced with better sources(did some edits) IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

About Visual impairments in Alzheimer's disease

I'd appreciate any help from members of this WikiProject in determining the best course of action with this article. It was created by a WikiEd student editor, Eg2619, and is a contested draftification. The article currently needs some cleanup with regards to layout, and contains some essay-like language that's not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I'm also unsure if this subject merits a standalone article, or whether a merge to another article may be appropriate. Thanks in advance, and let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

TechnoSquirrel69 thanks for raising the issue here. I moved the article back to userspace. I have my doubts whether this can be salvaged at all, but it doesn't belong in mainspace in this state.

Since the class is over, I'm hoping this will be the end of it. But if there's anything in the student's work that could improve the main Alzheimer's article, the sandbox is here User:Eg2619/Alzheimer's disease. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit flagged as predatory journal - need help finding out which citation

Hi all, I recently committed a large paragraph edit with numerous citations using the visual editor, and when committing the edit, I got a notice that one of the citations was automatically flagged as potentially from a predatory journal. However, the popup notice didn't fit in the publish edit popup box, so I was unable to read the whole notice or see which of the citations was flagged. Can someone point me to a tool that I can use to scan the article for potentially predatory journals, so I can see and fix this citation problem? How can I avoid stumbling into this problem again, and why did the formatting of the publish edit box prevent me from seeing the whole notice? The citations in question were the best available for a scientific project based in India that is necessary for discussion on the page I am editing. Thanks!

Willmskinner (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Headbomb/unreliable.js D6194c-1cc (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I used that tool to find the citation in question, and it is a publication in a journal that is owned by the predatory OMICs conglomerate, but the paper in question seems to be the only report available about the Indian clinical trial in question, so I am inclined to leave it included. Link here: [5] Will this cause any flagging or downrating of the article I am editing?

Thanks,

Willmskinner (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Purge it with prejudice. Nothing from OMICS comes remotely close to WP:MEDRS/WP:DUE Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

But this leads to a question: if I need to discuss the results of the clinical trial in question, the only other articles possible to use are news articles that are clearly referencing the data from this paper. That would look better to the citewatch script but certainly wouldn't actually be more reliable as a source... I can reference the existence of the trial through clinical trial registry webpages, but those don't include the results from it. Willmskinner (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this for Male contraceptive? Which trial is it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do you need to reference a trial that can't even bother to go through peer review? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing yes! I've copied the paragraph in question here below. For context, this project was the first method of vas-occlusive contraception to be investigated, and gets a very large amount of (often overblown) publicity in the general news media. It has performed multiple clinical trials in India in the last 40 years (some of which have had to be repeated to reach international standards, I believe) and most importantly, has now been approved by the Indian Drug Controller's office (equivalent of the US FDA) for use in India, though it has not reached the market yet (supposedly due to manufacturing scale-up issues). The results of the most recent clinical trial were published in a predatory and possibly poorly peer-reviewed journal, yes, but I don't know whether the authors were aware of that. I'm struggling to figure out how to discuss this project with fairness, given the seemingly earnest efforts of the treatments creators and the difficult structural conditions for research in India, and the fact that it may soon available for use by over a billion people, while being honest about the project's shortcomings. I would appreciate any thoughts!

"RISUG is an injectable male contraceptive implant that has been in development in India since the 1970s, and completed Phase-III clinical trials in India in 2017, completely blocking sperm release in 97.3% of users and achieving a 99.02% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy "without any serious side effect". As of 2022, RISUG was awaiting approval from the Drug Controller General of India for mass production. RISUG is proposed to be reversed through a second injection that dissolves the polymer, though reversibility has not yet been demonstrated in humans."

Willmskinner (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It'd be silly to have Male contraceptive completely omit information about Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG), especially now that it has marketing approval to the largest market on the planet, but it's difficult to find really good sources.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/andr.13525 has a paragraph on RISUG that gives lower numbers ("A subsequent limited phase III study of 139 men showed that the Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance procedure produced persistent azoospermia in 82.7% of men"). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8169637/ mentions that it's "effective", but without any specific numbers.

I wonder whether it's actually important to include specific numbers in this article. Perhaps it's enough to say that it appears to be effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, that review paper is great! The trial they are referring to in there with lower numbers was for an earlier "restricted" phase III trial with fewer participants. I suppose I could just report the results from that one and then mention the existence of the newest trial by citing a news article about it. I'm still hesitant to reference anything that contains the possibly non-peer reviewed statistics in there, but I will at least refrain from mentioning those questionable statistics myself. Thanks for the help, everyone! Willmskinner (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Methylphenidate redux - clinical trial quality, risk of bias - comments?

More discussion on the efficacy and quality of the evidence base for methylphenidate! Opinions for consensus sought. Those knowledgeable about systematic reviews and risk of bias in clinical trials particularly appreciated. Feline negativity (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• direct link Talk:Methylphenidate#Balancing article information about methylphenidate; call for consensus--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#User:RetractionBot,_v2

Some of you may have some thoughts on the proposed bot task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Methionine

User is restoring a bunch of old animal models on Methionine. Content such as "A 2009 study on rats showed "methionine supplementation in the diet specifically increases mitochondrial ROS production and mitochondrial DNA oxidative damage in rat liver mitochondria offering a plausible mechanism for its hepatotoxicity" isn't good evidence. One of the listed sources [6] describes a calorie-restricted diet on fruit flies. I am not sure why this is relevant to the article. Per WP:MEDANIMAL I do not believe we should be citing small scale cherry-picked animal studies like this which are clearly weak evidence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There are over 120 review articles with 'methionine' in their title on PubMed over the last 5 years. There would seem to be little need to cite any articles older than those (as there are plenty of good recent ones to choose from). If one were to flesh out the clinical use paragraph in Methionine, then one should probably not dwell on its use for aging, but also include a balance of review articles covering all of its uses (and potential uses). Over a dozen of these 120 review articles discuss aging, so it is appropriate to include aging as part of a balanced coverage - but please use these more recent review articles as references. Jaredroach (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TOPS System#Requested move 20 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TOPS System#Requested move 20 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Recreation: Anesthesiology task force

Hi, I'm writing this message in relation to the old anesthesiology task force. I was curious as to the interest in recreating and maintaining this task force which had never been truly established. If anyone is interested, or would like to provide a comment, please reply to this topic. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 17:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Neuropol, you're most welcome to unilaterally edit the task force pages, and to set them up however you see fit. I'll gently warn that the engine of each WikiProject/task force is the people, not the pages. Many WikiProjects/task forces were setup in our headier days, but over the years most haven't drawn a consistent group of editors to support them, and have lapsed into disuse. Thus, my advice: if you want an anesthesiology task force, focus on recruiting and cultivating a group of anesthesiology-interested editors, rather than organizing the task force pages. If the group is so large/active that you need the separate page to coordinate your efforts, then the task force is well on its way. Best of luck, Ajpolino (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Metastatic carcinoma

Should Metastatic carcinoma be redirected to Metastasis. I know the terms are technically different but Metastasis covers the topic of Metastatic carcinoma pretty well and I feel like if Metastatic carcinoma was expanded there would be a lot of overlap with the page Metastasis. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a reader interested in metastatic carcinoma would be better served by the article carcinoma? I agree with your basic premise that developing an article on "metastatic carcinoma" is (while possible?) probably not the best context to present that information in. Ajpolino (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'm honestly not sure which article would make a better target for a redirect. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely put "Metastatic carcinoma" as a subheader in the article Carcinoma. It does not stand on its own as a separate article. Indeed, there is already a Carcinoma#Invasion and metastasis subheader. The text could just go there — no need for new subheader. Jaredroach (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Factitial dermatitis

I noticed that the template for Factitial dermatitis (see below) has the subsections labelled as 1010. Does anyone know what classification was being used here? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's the edit as part of an attempt to action this bot request (a follow-up to this WT:MED discussion). I'm not clever enough to figure how "1010" ended up as the text, but I believe the intention was to replace the ICD code numbers with something human readable. Ajpolino (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will manually edit the sections! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

New paper on Wikipedia's medical coverage

I happened to run into this while reading PeerJ's recent publications and thought it'd be of interest:

• Li X, Chen K, Jia Y, Yin F, Wen X, Wang C, Li Z, Zhang H (2024). "Assessment of medical information on irritable bowel syndrome information in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia: Comparative study". PeerJ. 12: e17264. doi:10.7717/peerj.17264. PMC 11129691. PMID 38803580.

Looking at the supplementary material, it seems they reviewed Irritable bowel syndrome, Functional constipation, Constipation, Dysbiosis, Flatulence, Functional gastrointestinal disorder, Indigestion, Intestinal malrotation, Levator ani syndrome, Neurogenic bowel dysfunction, Proctalgia fugax, and Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. The conclusions are reasonably flattering. Notably, the authors seem aware of talk pages and content assessment. Vaticidalprophet 05:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

interesting read--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Baidu is a fork of the Chinese-language Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Transvestic fetishism article

Edit: Never mind, disregard. – 104.177.77.7; 03:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

104.177, total re-writes on hot-button subjects are rarely successful. I suggest trying to make changes stepwise. Add or change one sentence, paragraph, or section at a time, and let people have a while to "get used to" the new content before making the next change. It sounds like one of the improvements you should prioritize is differentiating Transvestic fetishism from Cross-dressing.

By the way, one thing that you absolutely cannot do is quote the full DSM criteria (which are copyrighted). We don't allow this in any article, even under fair use claims. So your change would have been reverted even if everyone agreed with it.

Please consider going to Special:CreateAccount and creating an account. This is to protect your own privacy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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[7]--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)

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 [8]. MaligneRange (talk) 08:31, 4 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 Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Prurigo simplex

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)

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)

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.

1. 1. 1. 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].

1. 1. 1. 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].

1. 1. 1. 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].

1. 1. 1. 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)

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)

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:Idiopathic ulnar neuropathy at the elbow#Requested move 13 June 2024

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)