Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:00, 14 September 2014

• WT:MED

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 4 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Using the term "diagnosis"

I have been cleaning up our article on Multiple chemical sensitivity. It is not a widely-recognized diagnosis with an ICD code or anything like that. Is it appropriate to use the term "diagnosis" in this context? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it has quite a bit to say about diagnosis. It's quite possible that there are two valid viewpoints: no diagnosis exists (per WHO in the first paragraph); or it's a diagnosis by exclusion (per the rest of the section). If that's so, the section probably just needs tightening up to present each view with due weight. Of course, it might be that the WHO view is mainstream and the alternative is sufficiently fringe that it ought not to be there at all. In that case, take an axe to the latter part.

Either way, it seems there's sufficient sources and content to justify having a Diagnosis section. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"Diagnosis" is the process of identifying something (ideally, but not necessarily, something useful) about the nature of your situation; it is not the process of assigning an ICD code to your situation. People can be "diagnosed" with anything, even conditions that have been rejected by medical authorities or conditions that are unknown to medical authorities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with WAID Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks for the sanity check. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

How to help new editors

I know that some of you are very interested in helping new users, and I thought that you might like to look at the ideas posted here: Sixty ways to help new editors. It has a lot of ideas, and it would be easy for anyone to find one or two things to try out for a while. User:Ocaasi's WP:The Misplaced Pages Adventure gets a namecheck, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Introducing Myself Ammar/user:amosabo

Hi all,

I'm Ammar, I'm a 5th year medical student in Cario, Egypt. I have had this account for a few years now but have not really done anything useful with it yet. I am doing a placement at the UK Cochrane Centre (Summer 2014) and I am helping out with one of their partner networks: Students 4 Best Evidence (S4BE) which I have been a volunteer contributor for for just over a year now. S4BE is a global student network for Evidence Based Health.

As you will have heard from Sydney above, S4BE are organizing a Misplaced Pages week to encourage students to participate in editing Misplaced Pages's health content, and I am helping out with that.

I hope to continue editing Misplaced Pages after the event and my placement end. I met some of the very kind people from WikiProject Medicine in Wikimania London and must say it was a pleasure; everyone was very welcoming and the atmosphere was very encouraging. I would be delighted to get to know you all better and would love it if anyone had any tips/pointers.

Amosabo (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, Amosabo. Will you and Sydney be suggesting topics to the students? I'd like the students to have a good first experience, which is more likely to happen if we encourage them to pick articles that aren't regularly the site of battles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Doc James and WhatamIdoing for the welcome. Yes we will be, especially since some of them are new to Misplaced Pages we've prepared a specific task lists with the help of the UK Cochrane Centre who have identified a number of articles with potentially relevant content. They are in my sandbox, do have a look and tell me what you think. amosabo 15:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Useful health related maps

Hi All

I've just uploaded some maps to Wikimedia Commons under the Category Maps by MetricMaps, many of which are health related and some of which are animated. Below are the ones I think are probably most relevant. Mrjohncummings (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Mrjohncummings These maps are great. I tried to post one to an article but it was immediately reverted due to lack of source data, which I realize is a valid concern. I wrote to the map makers about getting access to the original data sets from which these were derived. If we could just link to the data sets in the file description then I think that would sort the problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Once we've got some of the maps used on articles it will be nice to give MetricMaps some feedback on how many people see the maps they produce. Thanks for working on this. Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Mrjohncummings I am at a standstill without data sources. I need a URL to a data set to post in the Commons description of each map, otherwise, they all have a WP:RS problem. I got a complaint almost immediately and stopped posting pending resolution. I pinged the map people on Twitter and still have no reply. I expect they do not know what I want or why it matters. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Lina Medina: the world's youngest mother or a hoax?

I am concerned about the article Lina Medina. She is presented as the youngest person known to have given birth. To me the story appears to be a hoax as there is little evidence to support the claim that at 5 years old she gave birth. Many women have been left infertile from giving birth at a very young age, but Lina Medina is said in the article to have given birth to another child almost 40 years later. I would like the sources in the article to be examined, in particular by experts in human growth and development. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The section discussing the topic is at Talk:Lina Medina#A Hoax?. A WP:Permalink is here. Like I told AlwynJPie, WP:Reliable sources, including Time, report the pregnancy as real. Some of these sources include medical evidence of the pregnancy, such as mention of X-rays. If there are WP:Reliable sources reporting the pregnancy as a hoax, and those sources have evidence that it is a hoax instead of simply claiming it as a hoax based on original reports, then that material should of course be included in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Need opinions

There is a deletion nomination at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Ipsilateral_monoparesis with no discussion after 10 days. I would appreciate other people from WP:Medicine to take a look and see what you think. Thank you! --Gccwang (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also while I have your attention I've proposed a merger of Hemiparesis into Hemiplegia -- the discussion is located at Talk:Hemiplegia#Merge_Hemiparesis_and_Hemiplegia. Thank you again!! --Gccwang (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Pathophysiology section at the Sexual addiction article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexual addiction#"Pathophysiology" section. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. The discussion is about whether or not text that Seppi333 included is a WP:Synthesis matter, and whether or not the text should be presented as though sexual addiction is a valid concept, given that some researchers dispute that sexual addiction exists. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. User:Seppi333 has inserted a great blob of material from the FOSB article into at least three other articles -- Addiction, Substance dependence and Sexual addiction -- in a context which seems to suggest that the FOSB theory of addiction is the be-all and end-all of addiction research (not to mention the end of the discussion regarding the existence of sexual addiction), in a way that seems to break WP:NPOV and border on being WP:SYNTH.

When I removed and queried their edits, they were most forthright in laying down the law that this was settled, uncontrovertible medical fact. Which is interesting, because that's not what researchers in the field appear to say about it. (see, for example, , where the author makes it very clear in the abstract that this is a tentative conclusion)

From Seppi333' user page, I can't see any claim that they have any background in biochemistry or medicine. Asking them about this seems to have annoyed them quite a lot. I'd appreciate it if any medically knowledgeable editors could take a look at this. -- The Anome (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Anome (talk · contribs · logs) has been deleting entire sections of content on ΔFosB in substance dependence, sexual addiction, addiction for reasons (largely irrelevant to[REDACTED] policy) that this user is arguing at Talk:Sexual addiction. I could use some assistance in dealing with this. Virtually all of these sources are also used in Amphetamine.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit: noticed a section was already posted since I last opened the create section window. Again, all of these sources are used in an FA-nominated article, so whether or not this material is factually accurate is a very important issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My point is this. The material you've added is perfectly fine Misplaced Pages article material, supported by WP:MEDRS, etc. etc. I have no problem with that. The way you've inserted it into these articles, though, is contrary to WP:NPOV and appears to me to constitute WP:SYNTH, in giving a misleading impression that this is the end of the discussion as far as medical research goes. As the abstract of J.K. Ruffle's recent review article on the matter shows, it clearly isn't, and Ruffle is a proponent of the hypothesis.

Their language is clear:

" This induction is likely to, at least in part, be responsible for the mechanisms underlying addiction, a disorder in which the regulation of gene expression is thought to be essential. In this review, we describe and discuss the proposed role of ΔFosB as well as the implications of recent findings." (My italics.)

You clearly have very strong opinions on the matter, which you don't hold back on, and present yourself as an arbiter of truth in these matters, yet you (self admittedly) have no relevant professional expertise in thse matters.

I have no problem with the FOSB hypothesis -- it sounds perfectly reasonable to me, it might wellbe true, who am I to say? I also have no problem with it being mentioned in all of these articles. But, if it is to be in those articles, it needs to be mentioned at much shorter length, with attributions as to who is putting forward the hypothesis, and to in particular to cite references that explicitly say that the FOSB hypothesis applies to the particular article it's being mentioned in. Otherwise, this is just original research on your part. -- The Anome (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've deleted all but 1 citation for every behavioral addiction clause, so there obviously can't be any synth in the text now. Go ahead and WP:V check.
• You realize Ruffle's publication is a primary source, right?

• I don't think you understand what I'm talking about with WP:SYNTH, but I will check.
• Regarding Ruffle's paper, I'm not citing it in a Misplaced Pages article -- I'm just using it as evidence, here, that an actual credentialled medical researcher advanced those opinions in a peer-reviewed journal -- The Anome (talk)

I just noticed pubmed doesn't call it a review, though the article itself indicates this. Since it is a review, I'll download and read it and then use it to write/cite text for these articles later this week when I get around to updating FOSB again. Also, you're correct, I'm a bit clueless as to how text cited by a single source could constitute WP:SYNTH, a policy on combining material from multiple sources. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The WP:SYNTH policy is about original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources. For example, unless your sources refer to sexual addiction directly, then you would be making the inference yourself that it's relevant to that article -- making the (possibly correct) inference that because FOSB is likely involved in sexual and other reward pathways, it's necessarily also implicated in sexual addiction -- and that would be original research on your part.

In the meantime, can you please take the disputed sections out of the articles for now, or allow me to do so? As you can see, I've got no objection to either the FOSB hypothesis or its presence in those articles per se, it's just that it needs to be done in such as way that WP:NPOV and WP:OR are followed, and in particular the clear absence of WP:SYNTH. -- The Anome (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason for the urgency here? It's not like the WP:DEADLINE is upon us. Why not just leave it alone until someone can improve it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You may want to try WT:MCB if you'd like to get feedback from an appropriate project to review content on molcular biology. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Absoutely. I've got no problem with the molbio content of the FOSB material, it's the implicit linkage to clinical concepts like addiction, substance dependence, sex addiction etc. where everything gets blurry. -- The Anome (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Anome: The relevant sections to sex addiction are the introduction, "sexual reward", and "concluding remarks" sections of this ref. Since you don't appear to have a problem with the reference, instead of deleting all the content, it might be better if you simply read the sections (they're not that long), wrote your own version, and we arrived at a compromise version. That's a bit more constructive than deleting everything. It's also a solution I don't strongly oppose.

Edit: The other review on sex addiction is this one. The quoted excerpt is the only part of that review supporting the article text on sex addiction, so it's much shorter than the first review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Blum K, Werner T, Carnes S, Carnes P, Bowirrat A, Giordano J, Oscar-Berman M, Gold M (2012). "Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll: hypothesizing common mesolimbic activation as a function of reward gene polymorphisms". J. Psychoactive Drugs. 44 (1): 38–55. doi:10.1080/02791072.2012.662112. PMC 4040958. PMID 22641964. It has been found that deltaFosB gene in the NAc is critical for reinforcing effects of sexual reward. Pitchers and colleagues (2010) reported that sexual experience was shown to cause DeltaFosB accumulation in several limbic brain regions including the NAc, medial pre-frontal cortex, VTA, caudate, and putamen, but not the medial preoptic nucleus. Next, the induction of c-Fos, a downstream (repressed) target of DeltaFosB, was measured in sexually experienced and naive animals. The number of mating-induced c-Fos-IR cells was significantly decreased in sexually experienced animals compared to sexually naive controls. Finally, DeltaFosB levels and its activity in the NAc were manipulated using viral-mediated gene transfer to study its potential role in mediating sexual experience and experience-induced facilitation of sexual performance. Animals with DeltaFosB overexpression displayed enhanced facilitation of sexual performance with sexual experience relative to controls. In contrast, the expression of DeltaJunD, a dominant-negative binding partner of DeltaFosB, attenuated sexual experience-induced facilitation of sexual performance, and stunted long-term maintenance of facilitation compared to DeltaFosB overexpressing group. Together, these findings support a critical role for DeltaFosB expression in the NAc in the reinforcing effects of sexual behavior and sexual experience-induced facilitation of sexual performance. ... both drug addiction and sexual addiction represent pathological forms of neuroplasticity along with the emergence of aberrant behaviors involving a cascade of neurochemical changes mainly in the brain's rewarding circuitry.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Agreed. I'm working on another off-wiki project at the moment, but I will have a go at this tomorrow. In the sexual addiction article, I think it probably belongs in the "Causes" section of the article, alongside the "Psychological distress theories" and "Heterogeneous theories" subsections, perhaps with a subheading like "FOSB hypothesis" or "Biochemical hypothesis". I think it should be a brief one or two paragraph summary of the views of authors who explicitly link FOSB to sexual addiction, per WP:NPOV with a link to the FOSB article itself for the full details of the FOSB/addiction hypothesis.

For example, the reference above could be used to support a sentence of something like the form "In a 2012 paper, Blum et. al. proposed the hypothesis that DeltaFOSB played a critical role in both drug addiction and sexual addiction." There should be similarly customized treatments for addiction and substance dependence, with the section in addiction being larger than the others. I don't believe there's any need to introduce large chunks of the FOSB article into other articles, that's what wikilinks are for. -- The Anome (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, really, it's not resolved, unless your idea of problem resolution is to steamroller all other opinions out of existence.

Not only have have you completely ignored my offer above to submit an NPOV version that meets policy as a starting point for meeting consensus, you've now gone back and shoved all the FOSB stuff back in, and also, as a bonus, now removed anything about competing psychological theories. Please see my revision here, which I believe references the FOSB material in a balanced way that I believe follows the WP:NPOV guidelines, and allows the reader to follow the link to the FOSB article to read about the FOSB theory in detail.

As I said in my comment to you in my comment on your talk page, added a few minutes ago, some experts think sexual addiction does not exist. Yet others think it not only exists, but has a clear biochemical mechanism. Yet if it doesn't exist, it can't have a cause, and if it has a cause, it must exist. It's clear that these two positions are logically incompatible, but are both held by experts: therefore neither of these views are uncontroversial, and WP:NPOV applies.- The Anome (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Heroin vs diamorphine

Please comment here. Axl ¤ 13:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Reanalyses of Randomized Clinical Trial Data

An interesting paper in JAMA which provides a wonderful illustration of why we should insist on secondary sources. Of course, it too is a primary source in some regards... LeadSongDog come howl! 14:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Reanalyses differed most commonly in statistical or analytical approaches (n = 18) and in definitions or measurements of the outcome of interest (n = 12)." I don't have access to the full text, but isn't that pretty much the definition of post-hoc analysis? The original trial endpoints and statistical analysis are pre-specified as good statistical practice requires. Overall (and admittedly without having seen the full text), this strikes me more as a warning of some of the potential problems with reanalysis of trial data than direct evidence of its benefits (which have been demonstrated in other sources). Formerly 98 (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that these were reanalyses of the original study hypothesis (primary outcome), as distinct from post-hoc sub-group analyses. Therefore, such reanalyses aim to verify the published findings by conducting an alternative (improved?) analysis of the original data set. The findings of the paper published in JAMA are relevant to key questions regarding transparency and the desirability of open access to trial data. The accompanying editorial concludes:

The recognition that one trial can potentially lead to different findings and conclusions depending on many discretionary decisions that are made about the data and reanalyses almost mandates that those choices are transparent and described in detail—and that others have the chance to replicate them. Rather than the rare exception, open science and replication should become the standard for all trials and especially those that have high potential to influence practice.

Support, 86.164.164.123 (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not just retrospective subgroup analysis, nor is it that the newly chosen endpoints and statistical methods are "non-transparent". It is that any non-prespecified analysis of the data creates a problem of multiple hypothesis testing. This is part of why the EMA for a while (I don't know the current status) was pushing for data release only to those who provided advance protocols of what their re-analysis endpoints and statistical methods would be. The issue is similar to why the FDA does not allow companies to substitute "improved" endpoints or statistical analyses for proving efficacy after their data is unblinded.

Interestingly, just today, this news report by Derek Lowe of a biotech suspending development of a drug due to what they call "fraud" by employees who conspired to view unblinded clinical trial data and reformulate the trial endpoints after unblinding of the data to make the drug look better. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of willful malpractice is another matter. Imo, providing open access to data sets is ultimately relevant for transparency (as well as to possible pooled analyses). Quite what credence to give to an alternative analysis, in the light of the methodological questions it will inevitably raise, is a question that must be open to peer review and debate. As of course is the original report of the study design, analysis and interpretation... 86.164.164.123 (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me restate that in a way that might be clearer. Its not a subtle question of methodological questions that are equally applicable to the original and re-analysis that I am referring to. I'm specifically referring to the well-established issue of the multiple comparisons problem. This is an important potential source of statistical error and even "cherry picking" for reanalyses that do not prespecify both the endpoints and the statistical method. It is normally not a potential source of these problems in the original analysis because the FDA requires pre-specification of both the endpoints and the statistical plan for any trial designed for regulatory approval. My point is simply that in order to be valid, the reanalyzers need to publically pre-state their analysis plan like Cochrane does and not go on a fishing expedition. (Though even Cochrane has been criticized for deviations from its prespecified analysis)

In general, whatever the flaws in pivotal clinical trials reviewed by the FDA for approval purposes may be, they are all based on efficacy endpoints and statistical analyses that are selected in advance of unblinding of the data, e.g., the investigators are blind to any effect their choice of one endpoint or statistical method vs another will have on the conclusions ("statistical significance") of the study. They cannot cherry pick. This can never be rigorously known to be true for any re-analysis, except in the narrow situation in which patient-level data is released by companies or regulatory authorities only after the re-analyzer pre-specifies an analysis plan. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course those are all valid points. But ones that do not (imho, at least) militate against the principle and potential of open access, per se (although that would presumably preclude the possibility of prespecified reanalyses, which at present are somewhat rare anyway). 86.164.164.123 (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish they were all valid points, but they are not. Not all trials are subject to FDA review (accupuncture practices, for instance). Even when they are, investigators, funders, and journal editors can and do cherry pick. The simple fact is that investigators (or their funders) quite regularly choose not to publish, rather than publish a "failed" trial which merely found the "wrong" conclusion. Simply search through clinicaltrials.gov and you'll see a huge proportion of trials which have not published conclusions, despite being long past their end dates. One sees extraordinary levels of this in trials of homeopathic preparations, herbals, manipulation therapies and many other alt-med interventions. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Back labor

User:Milowent has just created Back labor. This is a condition affecting about a million pregnant women each year in the US alone, and it's been a redlink for years. It's just a stub right now, but if it were expanded by just a few sentences, it would be a good article for WP:DYK. If anyone has any ideas, please join in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had some sort of award for creating new medical articles of high importance?

I thought "back labor" was work that had been left undone JFW | T@lk 20:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a "see also" to Presentation (obstetrics) as that is relevant but as yet unlinked. I've also added a couple of diagrams, although sadly the occiput posterior position doesn't have an image that I could find on commons. If we had an ICD code, then there would be perhaps enough info for an infobox - I'm guessing that List of ICD-9 codes 630–679: complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium might have a relevant code, but someone who actually knows ought to make that determination. I am not an obstetrician, nor do I play one on TV. --RexxS (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, JFW. I've awarded it. I'd forgotten about that trophy, and it's fun. It looks like someone else has applied for it at WP:MEDMAT, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Lehman in BMJ mentions Misplaced Pages

Many who were at Wikimania will remember meeting Richard. I think we missed this so far 2 mentions in the last 3 sections before the plant. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. One of the points is now raised at Talk:BCG vaccine#Variable efficacy?. 86.164.164.123 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Term definitions infobox/template

Is there a particular infobox or other template that we use or anyone can suggest for defining a list of topic-related terms for transcluding to multiple related articles? Most of the terms related to the two notable addiction paradigms (the pharmacological one and another termed the reward-reinforcement paradigm ) aren't defined as a group on addiction or anywhere else I've looked. The former is mainly a clinical/diagnostic paradigm, whereas the latter is a research paradigm (e.g., used by all the reviews cited in ΔFosB).

A second related point that I figure I'll mention: addiction and dependence are essentially used interchangeably in virtually every addiction and addictive drug article on wikipedia, and also in template:infobox drug's dependence liability (I'm guessing this is influenced by the DSM's framework). See the dependence liability field at Caffeine for a high-traffic article example of where this is weird. It makes the meaning of the term "dependence" very vague in drugboxes/articles at the moment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by `Is there a particular infobox or other template that we use or anyone can suggest for defining a list of topic-related terms for transcluding to multiple related articles?` Why would we want to transclude lists of terms to articles? We have the boxes at the bottoms of pages. We have blue links. We are not a dictionary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd want to transclude a column box that could be used to list terms and had a right-aligned box, similar to an infobox. I figured I'd seen something like this before, I just don't remember the article. This would be a substitute for transcluding a whole section of prose solely on definitions that covers these in the text. Also, most of these articles have tiny infoboxes and giant TOC's, so there's usually a lot of room in the right-column. From the recent statements made during the dispute at sex addiction, I gathered that there's at least a minority of people who think the establishment of diagnostic criteria is equivalent to the medical/clinical identification of an addiction. This isn't even remotely true, and most articles include text associated with both frameworks, which is why I think it would be useful to indicate that there's two addiction frameworks and the associated terminology, or, at the very least, a link to a page of those terms. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this: {{Docking glossary}} or {{Transcription factor glossary}}? Boghog (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what it was, thanks! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Boghog, I just changed the formatting at {{Docking glossary}}. I think it's easier to read, but if you don't like it, feel free to revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree the new formatting is easier to read. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And from an accessibility point-of-view, it's also an improvement. A glossary is a perfect example for the use of a definition list. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Would support their addition at the bottom of the page with the rest of the boxes. Adding to the lead is a little much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you need the glossary to make any sense out of the article, then it needs to be towards the top. Discovering what all those words mean when (if) you get to the end is not very helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been talk about creating pages that are glossaries and adding a link to this page somewhere. I think LT was working on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the goal is to follow the Make technical articles understandable guideline, not to transclude an full glossary of drug-dependence terms. MOS:JARGON recommends that editors “Avoid excessive wikilinking… as a substitute for parenthetic explanations…” (emphasis mine). However, when several articles share the same jargon, it might be wise to provide a consistent (and properly referenced) set of definitions in that style. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 13:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikicredit

I just created Misplaced Pages:Wikicredit to keep a record of the ongoing byline for contributors trial started from the recent discussion in this forum and as a place to list any other projects to give more credit to Wikimedia contributors. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiTrust, although defunct, is potential relevant to this discussion. Boghog (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I added that too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks Blue. We are discussing the creation of a gadget to allow people to op-out. Hoping to get User:RexxS to build it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, it is longstanding practice that[REDACTED] articles not have bylines and the place to change that practice is a discussion which is widely representative of community members, not a specific project. That discussion appears to be here and is ongoing. Protonk (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We have consensus to run this locally on a number of articles related to this project per the link provided by Blue Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that pretty handily oversteps the bounds of what a project covers. Protonk (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

While concerns were raised. We are now testing the concerns on medical articles to see if they are legitimate. Those who primarily maintain these articles were fine with this, in fact they were supportive of it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Protonk, I'd rather experiment on a couple thousand articles than on a couple million. I assume that you agree with this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I can agree but feel it's immaterial to the matter at hand. Protonk (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that having a "Contributors" link next to the tagline on some medical articles for a few months is going to cause any genuine problems, and you never know, it may prove popular. Anyway, TheDJ had very kindly already built a gadget to do the job for us. It is at present only available with the Vector skin and can be enabled from your Preferences -> Gadgets -> Testing and development. It only shows on pages that are in the hidden Category:Articles with contributors link - which is now being set solely by {{Infobox disease}}. I'm requesting that the gadget should be enabled by default as it is already limited to a narrow range of medical articles. Naturally, any editor would even then still be able to turn it off for themselves from their Preferences. I hope this represents an acceptable way forward that is satisfactory for all. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rexx Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way we really have a reputation issue. While Misplaced Pages is good enough to plagiarism it is not good enough to attribute. This of course hinders our ability to collaborate with other organizations who are concerned about associating themselves with us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A discussion about restarting a trial of this is here MediaWiki_talk:Gadgets-definition#WP_MED_3_month_trial. Currently few have weighted in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment screening

One of our fabulous automated assessment screening duo has produced an updated version of m:Research:Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Stub prediction table. Harold Frost (about a quarter of the way down on the updated page) is where I'm at at the moment. The ones above that are articles that I think are probably still stubs (but perhaps you will disagree? It's a somewhat subjective system). If anyone wants to have a go at re-assessing the ones I haven't looked at yet, then feel free to start with Harold Frost and leave me a note to let me know how far you got. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

articles on proteins that are also used as drugs

Insulin-like growth factor 1, Platelet-derived growth factor are two articles I came across today and worked on a bit. The IGF-1 article was a disaster and is just a bit better now. How do you all think we should handle articles that molecular biology people have filled with all kinds of basic science data , and that have use as a drug as a recombinant protein? Seems weird to shove the whole article into MEDMOS format (and would probably cause a ruckus with the biology people). Have a separate article on the drug like Insulin-like growth factor 1 (drug)? Very interested in thoughts on this...I opened a discussion on the Talk page of IGF-1 Talk:Insulin-like_growth_factor_1#handling_clinical_aspects_of_IGF-1 Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The article "Insulin" is explicitly about the protein while "Insulin therapy" describes the drug. That seems like a sensible solution. Of course there is a lot more known about insulin than about IGF-1 or PDGF, especially as a drug.

If there is only a small amount of information about the drug applications of IGF-1 & PDGF, those could be added to the main article. If you anticipate a big expansion, or if that occurs later, a spin-out article could be created similar to "Insulin therapy". Axl ¤ 09:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks, that makes sense! Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So just to clear things up, and to see if you're with me: any new article should be IGF-1 therapy? This would also have the benefit of being able to include anti-IGF1 drugs. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping them in together as long as possible, but if you've reached the level of tens of thousands of words, it's time to consider a split.

The "which format" question is usually settled by considering what the "primary" subject is. If you heard someone on a bus talking about IGF, would you assume that they were talking about the drug, or about the natural protein (and, e.g., its effects on cancer risk)? For that one, I'd assume that latter, and therefore follow mostly a non-drug layout. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

that makes a ton of sense. thx to everybody! Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

CFCF, I think that "IGF-1 therapy" is a sensible title. However I don't think that it should include anti-IGF-1 drugs. Axl ¤ 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WMF blogpost on CRUK images

New images released are quickly put to use - my blogpost re the CRUK diagrams and also some Royal Society images is on the global Wikimedia Foundation blog, and also the Wikimedia UK blog here. Also there is a version of an internal newsletter I did on the CRUK project at User:Wiki CRUK John/Newsletter 1. Thanks again to all who have helped placing these images! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

And now the figures for the page views of Misplaced Pages articles containing CRUK diagrams have just been run, and were just over 1.1 million in August – traditionally a month with low views. The same articles had 1.317 million views in July, although the CRUK images were not on them then. The full details are at: the BaGLAMa report here

The process of adding images is by no means complete on the English Misplaced Pages, and none of the images have yet been added to other language versions of Misplaced Pages. I would hope the same report, which will now be run automatically sometime after the end of every month, will be showing over 20 million views a month by 2015. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Endometrial cancer

is now at FAC at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Endometrial cancer/archive1. Some regulars here have commented but I don't think it's been announced here. I have some COI, as it was reviewed by CRUK, so will hold off commenting for now. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine and WikiAfrica

This article says Wikipedians are delivering Ebola information in Africa. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've been working very hard over at WP:MEDTRANS, and you're very welcome to participate in any way you can, and we have a number of new guides out there showing you what can be done–even for an English-only speaker. We recently hit ~60 languages with a translated Ebola article and you can find all the links here WP:RTTS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Newsletter with all this and more due out in a few days! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Acupressure mat

This article seems to be making medical claims:

People who used an acupressure mat on their upper to lower back experienced the following effects:

• Improving conditions of liver, kidney, and spleen • Alleviating headache, fatigue, depression, and insomnia • Easing spinal problems, sciatica, muscle spasm, cramps • Better immune system, digestion, and elimination

The source cited (http://www.alfombramagica.es/smarty/templates/09-003/web/research.pdf) is a dead link, and somehow I doubt it would pass WP:MEDRS anyway. Comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the sentence before that one states it came from a 1996 pilot study anyway. Definitely sounds like it would have failed WP:MEDRS. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I added one sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, it's unfortunate so much effort needs to go into finding and combating such nonsense. One way to make it easier to monitor is to rate all such pages under WP:MED or WP:ALTMED. Then it's possible to track changes automatically (or at least this used to be possible with toolserver). User:Kephir/gadgets/rater is an excellent tool for that. By monitoring these pages we can make sure this dribble never gets accepted in the first place. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

MEDDATE when no newer sources have been identified

We are having a bit of discussion at Talk:Acupuncture#MEDDATE regarding what the MEDDATE section of MEDRS suggests that we do when sources used by the article are more than five years old but no newer sources have been identified to replace potentially outdated information. Do we summarily remove the source and information cited to it? Do we add a tag such as {{update inline}} or {{medrs}} to indicate to readers that the article may not reflect current understanding? Do we leave it alone until newer sources of similar caliber are identified? This article is covered by WP:FRINGE as well as WP:MEDRS, but the sources in question are all solid medical reviews that are more than five years old. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that WP:MEDDATE is clear on the matter; we should not remove a medical source simply because it's not published in the last five years or so. Unless, of course, more recent reviews are available. But WP:MEDDATE points out, "Within this range, assessing them may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism." And it gives space to areas that are less researched, stating that sourcing "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." My opinion on the particular case you are citing is that "we leave it alone until newer sources of similar caliber are identified." Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)