Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 11:18, 24 January 2025

Edit with VisualEditor

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

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024). "Misplaced Pages war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 14, 2024. Misplaced Pages was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

Drowning

The WHO has released their first-ever Global Report on Drowning Prevention. It has national statistics, risk factors, evidence-based prevention recommendations, and more.

Pbsouthwood, Belbury, Ex nihil, Scriptir EMsmile, would this interest any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. · · · Peter Southwood : 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I will take a look too. Thank you Scriptir (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Clean up of Thyroid hormone articles

Hi Wikiproject Medicine, seeking a little bit of preliminary input here.

I'm looking at how WP presents information around Thyroxine, Levothyroxine, Levothyroxine Sodium; and Tri-iodothyronine, Liothyronine and Liothyronine Sodium. Thinking a bit about the best way to present the info, because I know how interchangably some of these terms get used even in literature (eg liothyronine used to refer to endogenous tri-iodothyronine, or levothyroxine sodium being commonly referred to as levothyroxine), even though they technically refer to different things.

At the moment:

For T₃, there's a page for Liothyronine the drug, and one for Tri-iodothyronine the hormone.

For T₄, there's one page called Levothyroxine which is for the drug, and another page called Thyroid Hormones for Thyroxine the hormone (but this page covers both T₄ and T₃).

For consistency, I'm trying to decide if it would be of benefit to:

A) propose a merger of Tri-iodothyronine into Thyroid Hormones (with the result being three pages -- one for thyroid hormones, one for liothyronine the drug, one for levothyroxine the drug)

B) propose that Thyroxine the hormone gets its own article and the Levothyroxine page becomes more exclusively about the drug (with the result being five pages, one overview of thyroid hormones, one for thyroxine the hormone, one for levothyroxine the drug, one for tri-iodothyronine the hormone, one for liothyronine the drug).

Thoughts? Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

When a substance is both a natural hormone and a drug, generally there are separate articles. For example insulin vs. insulin (medication), testosterone vs. testosterone (drug). So I would support having separate hormone and drug articles for T₃ and T₄.

Thyroxine (T₄; the natural hormone) was once a standalone article that was turned into a redirect to Levothyroxine (the synthetic drug). Thyroxine (and also levothyroxine) refers specifically to T₄. Thyroid hormones refers to thyroxine and its active metabolites (T₃, rT₃, etc.)

There are three somewhat overlapping topics here: the chemical substances, the hormone(s), and the drug that fall under the scope of WP:Chemistry, WP:MCB, and WP:Pharmacology respectively. The is a general rule in WP:Chemistry, one article for each chemical substance. Hence we should have separate articles for T₄, T₃, rT₃, etc. that transclude {{Chembox}}. Finally within the scope of WP:MCB, a single article about the Thyroid hormones makes sense. Boghog (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Daphne Morrow: The new thyroxine page could look something like User:Boghog/Sandbox10 (please especially note the hat note). Boghog (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Amazing, I would support this for the new thyroxine page.

I have a further question, do you think we need to be clearer on the pages about Levothyroxine and Liothyronine about the difference between plain levothyroxine and levothyroxine] sodium, plain liothyronine and liothyronine sodium? Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears commercial formulations of both liothyronine and levothyroxine almost always contain the sodium salt. This could be mentioned in an "available forms" section under "medical uses" (see WP:PHARMOS). In addition, it could be mentioned that available forms include oral tablets, oral capsules, oral solution, and injectable forms. Boghog (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that these details (e.g., tablets vs capsules) are important. I'd only include available forms if it's a bit unusual (e.g., IV-only antibiotics, since people expect those to be pills, or oral chemotherapy drugs, since people expect those to be infusions) or if there is something special to be said about a particular formulation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Did a quick look at sources and this is what I found:

For levothyroxine sodium:

IV is used for extreme thyroid hormone deficiency: https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2000/1201/p2485.html

Oral solution is proposed to have benefits for children and people who find it difficult to swallow tablets (https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/levothyroxine/), may be taken with some substances that usually interfere with levothyroxine in tablet form (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.1080108/full), and may allow more precise dosing (Seen this multiple times in unreliable sources but need to find a reliable source that says it).

For liothyronine sodium:

IV is sometimes used for extreme thyroid hormone deficiency (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214624521000186)

Oral solution is presumably useful for children and people who have difficulty swallowing, but I didn’t find sources that back that up, so I will leave that out pending future info. Liquid may allow more precise dosing: (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/63/6/63_EJ16-0040/_article).

I think it would be good to note slow-release and regular release formulations as regular release creates peaks of T3 that make it difficult to monitor and are unlike the stability of endogenous T3 levels. “slow-release oral form of liothyronine showed a delayed, smaller serum T3 peak when compared with levothyroxine plus the standard liothyronine preparation.” (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(22)00004-3/abstract)

I'd like some guidance on whether details like this are good to include. Daphne Morrow (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If a pharmaceutical company took the trouble of developing and distributing a new dosage form, this implies there is a medical need for it. As long as there is a reliable source that documents a use case for a particular dosage form, I think it is fair game for an "available forms" section. This is precisely what this section is for. Boghog (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help.

Further to the question about the regular vs salt forms of levothyroxine and liothyronine, the information in the drugbox is inconsistent (eg. the image for levothyroxine shows the regular form, the image for liothyronine shows the salt form; the CAS for liothyronine goes to C15H12I3NO4, the pubchem link goes to C15H13I3NNaO5). Should I try to standardise these and if so, should I try to make all the information about the regular form or the salt form? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

My preference would be to standardize structures in {{Infobox drug}} on the parent and not salt forms. Per WP:MEDTITLE, drug articles should be named after the INN. In turn:

An INN is usually designated for the active part of the molecule only, to avoid the multiplication of entries in cases where several salts, esters, etc. are actually used.

— World Health Organization, "Guidance on INN", Health products policy and standards

Boghog (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you that makes perfect sense. I’ll put cleaning up the box info on my todo list.

Are you intending to publish Thyroxine? Is there anything I should do to help? Daphne Morrow (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Boghog (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You’re the best, thank you so much for this. Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Need help on adding content to WikiProject Medicine

Hello all. I specialize in the field of medicine and wanted to add content to wiki project medicine. However, I am very new to Misplaced Pages editing. Some hours back, I created a page on Wiki project . But I can't figure out what to do now. Nor can I see my name in participants' full list. Can someone tell me If by mistake I created a wrong page? Or may be suggest me how I can actively participate, if this is the right page. Kindly help. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Neotaruntius, welcome! The bot adds names once a day to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Members. Your name is there now, so you must have done everything right.

One project underway is to get at least one reference in every article this group supports. We only have 64 left to go. If you want to pick one (or a dozen!) from this list and add a suitable reliable source to it, that would be really helpful. (It's even more helpful if you also remove the {{unreferenced|date=January 2010}} tag from the top of the article.)

Alternatively, if you want to work on creating a new article, look at the two sections following this. I'm sure they would appreciate some help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks very much sir. Everything is appearing so new to me. As you can understand from my edits, I am very new to Misplaced Pages editing. Let me get used to this new interface. I will most definitely do as suggested. Many thanks for this huge favor.Neotaruntius (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

We're always glad to see new people helping out.

BTW, for adding sources to articles, I prefer using the visual editor. You should use whichever you like best. So you can compare them, for the article Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, here's a link that will take you straight to the older wikitext editor and here's a link that will give you the same article in the visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to echo user WAID's warm welcome. It is great to see new medical editors here! Happy editing and feel free to reach out anytime if you have any questions or want us to take a peek at your edits as you learn. JenOttawa (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

New drug names

Lists of new generic drug names under consideration or recommended as International Nonproprietary Names can be found at https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standards/inn/inn-lists Similarly, drug names under consideration as United States Adopted Names can be seen at https://www.ama-assn.org/about/united-states-adopted-names/usan-drug-names-under-consideration In the case of some new drugs, there may not be enough published information to allow an article to be written, but for others, creating an article may be possible. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eastmain, in my experience, by the time a drug candidate has reached Phase 3 clinical trials, there's plenty of sources for it, and there are frequently enough sources by Phase 2. One of the challenges has been figuring out which names are the same. We'll find a paper about "ABC-1234", and then the little biotech company gets bought, and it becomes "BIG-1234", and then it gets a brand name and a generic name, and now we have to search under multiple names.

For example, the first one in the recent Recommended list is https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Abenacianine, aka abenacianinum, aka VGT-309. Misplaced Pages should have an article on abenacianinum, or at least an article on Vergent Bioscience with redirects from all the names. Since the biomedical sources for pre-approval drugs tend to be primary, and almost always affiliated with the company (one example for this drug), the Misplaced Pages articles are often written more from the "business" than the "medical" side: They had these activities, they got this much money invested.

Just collecting all the names into a list could be helpful. I wonder if you'd like to talk to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pharmacology about this, as they are more specialized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eastmain: Thanks sir. I am working on these suggestions. I will get back to you again, if I have any problems. I am overwhelmed at the amount of help I am getting from completely unknown persons. The only common thread between all of us appears to be "love of knowledge", and a "genuine desire to contribute". Thank you sir once again. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm "ma'am", rather than sir, though most of the regulars on this page are men.

You have given me a good excuse to remind everyone how to find out. First, if you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-i18n then you can set your own gender. Remember that changing your prefs requires ticking/unticking the box plus scrolling down to click the blue Save button. (Actually changing your settings is optional, but I've done it, and if you look at the page, then the next step will make a little more sense. Whatever you choose for gender settings will be publicly visible.)

Second, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets-gadget-section-browsing and find "Navigation Popups". This replaces the usual box when you hover over a link with a more feature-filled one. If you turn on WP:NAVPOPS and ►reload this page (don't just use the back button on your browser for the first try), then when you hover over anyone's user name, you'll see the person's gender (if any is set in preferences; blank is the default of singular they), user rights/whether they're an admin, how long they've been editing, and how many edits they've made total.

There are other ways to find out this pref setting, but I usually find that this one is the most convenient for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Good catch WAID. I missed that Abenacianine is the same as VGT-309. Abenacianine is the English INN, abenacianinum is Latin, and Misplaced Pages drug articles should be named after the English INN. I renamed VGT-309 as Abenacianine and added VGT-309 as a synonym to the drug infobox. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Mandibular cancer

I was just working on an article about a state supreme court justice who died of complications from mandibular cancer, also known as cancer of the lower jaw, and was shocked to find that there is a rather prominent form of cancer for which we have no article. I know nothing about the topic, but perhaps someone who does have knowledge of this might write about it. BD2412 T 22:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

G.J.ThomThom, are you still looking for articles your students could create?

I see that Jaw cancer redirects to Oral cancer. Cancer of the jaw is a red link. I'm not sure if these are treated exactly the same, but I'd assume that mandibular cancer is a subtype of oral cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Yes things kick off for us in the new semester starting in January so you will be hearing more from me. I will take note of this. Thank you G.J.ThomThom (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

And please do pass on other cases like this if they emerge G.J.ThomThom (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThom, maybe also add Salt-sensitve hypertension to your list. We have a section at Salt and cardiovascular disease#Sodium sensitivity, but it cites sources from the previous century. It was in the news a while ago, with evidence of a connection to West African ancestry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added it to the list. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand, cancer of the mandible would not be classified as a type of oral cancer or even head and neck cancer. Oral cancer generally refers to squamous cell carcinoma (a soft tissue cancer arising in the epithelial layer). As for cancer arising in the hard tissue of the jaw, I don't know exactly how they would be classified... maybe redirect to Bone tumor is best for now.

As the current article for oral cancer states: "Other cancers can occur in the mouth (such as bone cancer, lymphoma, or metastatic cancers from distant sites) but are also considered separately from oral cancers."

Also I don't know if there is a need for a dedicated article for each bone in terms of cancer. That is because I guess each article would be quite similar when it comes to the list of possible cancers which may originate or spread to that bone. The mandible is however possibly an exception because of the existence of that group of cancers related to the tissues which form the teeth (see Odontogenic tumor). Moribundum (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Another quick note: as far as I am aware, cancer originating in the hard tissues of the jaw is significantly less prominent compared to squamous cell carcinoma of the soft tissues. I don't think it is the case that the encyclopedia is missing some very important category of cancer here. Moribundum (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

DSM copyright warnings

I have created {{DSM copyright}}. It's a message for talk pages, to warn editors that they can't copy the full criteria out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for copyright reasons.

We've known about this problem for years, but there are always new editors joining, and occasionally someone will replace a description with the copyrighted text of the DSM entry. Even though they're really just trying to help, the fact is that the copyright holder could actually sue them (and would win). I'd like to give these editors the information they need to do the right thing.

To save time and fingers, I'd like to ask someone at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests or Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to spam this warning onto the talk pages of all the conditions listed in List of mental disorders. (Anyone can add it manually to other pages, and if there's an item in that list that doesn't have a DSM entry, then it could be manually removed as irrelevant and unnecessary in that case.) Does anyone support or oppose this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I support IntentionallyDense 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Support asking a bot to place message on talk pages (I've actually had to argue this recently here on this talk page!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I support placing message and bot publishing it to talk pages. Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I support it sir wholehearted. However, there could literally be thousands of pages, where one could unintentionally add a DSM category. Being a newbie, I was wondering, about the possibility of having a Bot, which could automatically warn an editor, that he was adding something that was copyrighted. This would be far simpler than somebody keeping on removing unwanted entries. Of course, I am not sure, if such a bot exists, or could even be created. Kindly advise. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, we can't give real-time warnings, and since not all books are digitized, it'll never be perfect. But we do have a system that runs after you've added some text, to check for probable copyvios. Because the copyvio systems are really matching to "matches this website" – and some websites aren't copyrighted – it requires manual review after that, but we think we're catching at least most of it that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:Thanks sir for your valuable comments. Yes, "real-time warnings" are what I meant. A system checking for "copyright violations" also sounds good enough. I did find a page for copyvio template . Thanks very much. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed: the book is copyrighted material. I support the tag and bot(s). Gobucks821 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: The nice folks at Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks have added the template to the talk pages on ~200 articles about mental health. From here, expect two things:

• To need to add it yourself, manually, to other articles. Generally speaking, if the DSM has diagnostic criteria for the article's subject, then this template belongs on the article's talk page.
• For editors to slowly notice this. WP:Nobody reads the directions, especially not right away, so spreading the word will take some time. But over time, we should see fewer potential copyvios being added, and more of them being quickly removed. Remember: If you have to revert someone adding the DSM diagnostic criteria (or anything else that's copyrighted), the link for how to report this is in the template. (The admins WP:REVDEL the copyvio edit so nobody will accidentally restore it later.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Prostate cancer TFA February 4

Please watchlist the article for vandalism or inappropriate edits on February 4, when it appears on Misplaced Pages's mainpage.

• Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/February 4, 2025

Great work by Ajpolino ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Fun Christmas paper

Some of you might be interested in reading this:

• Cro, Suzie; Phillips, Rachel (2024-12-14). "All I want for Christmas…is a precisely defined research question". Trials. 25 (1): 784. doi:10.1186/s13063-024-08604-w. ISSN 1745-6215. PMC 11645783. PMID 39673058.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:MEDRS apply for pet studies?

See talk-page discussion at Vegetarian and vegan dog diet, a user added a trial and it was removed by another editor. My understanding is that MEDRS does also apply for biomedical claims made about pets and that we shouldn't use primary sources such as a single feeding trial. I could be wrong though; it's been a while since I edited anything related to pets. Seeking clarification on this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

As pet foods and medications are regulated by the FDA under an almost identical pathway as human drug approvals and indications, I’d agree that WP:MEDRS applies.

Could you find somebody in a veterinary Project to get their impression (since that’s more into their speciality)? Thnx, again, I agree it should apply! Gobucks821 (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

VETMED was always a small group, and I'm not sure who's around these days.

Historically, the community has been more tolerant of primary sources being cited for content that could not possibly have any human medical application. Also, WP:ECREE ("Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence") applies to all content. If the results are surprising ("e.g., obligate carnivores are healthy on a long-term vegan diet"), then I'd want more than a primary source. If the results are WP:SKYBLUE ("Mammals need to eat food"), then a peer-reviewed primary journal article (especially its background/overview section) might be a strong enough source. In between those two extremes, you'll have to use your judgment.

Sometimes the fastest solution is to find another source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and I agree. Unfortunately there are hardly any studies that have been done on vegan dog diets and no good reviews. The feeding trial in question was this one . There is a serious lack of secondary sources discussing this kind of topic. I think it would be best to wait until more research has been published. I disagree with citing just one trial. We need better secondary sourcing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

And it's recent, so we're unlikely to find it in textbooks yet. It's possible that there is some sort of popular press comment on it. Those tend to be lousy sources in a different way, though, even the ones that are technically secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Request additional eyes on American Society of Anesthesiologists

A recent addition was made to the article. The addition doubled the text length of the article and focuses on negative aspects of the organization's lobbying (sources appear sound). It would be good to get people who are familiar with articles about professional medical organizations to look at the addition to make sure it adheres to NPOV. Springee (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If the information from 2004, that the ASA “spent the second-largest sum of money on lobbying of all professional physician associations in the United States.” is true for the long term, then I would expect lobbying to take up a greater portion of their page than other pages about professional medical organisations.

I’m concerned about the focus on recent contentious lobbying however. Sounds like the ASA been lobbying for decades with a lot of money, and if so, this section should reflect whatever those other efforts were. Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"In the 2000s, the ASA lobbied to force anesthesiologists to be in the hospital room whenever an anesthesia drug was administered to patients during colonoscopies " is unreferenced. NYT article does not mention it. T g7 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

NYT article does not mention propofol either. T g7 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a topic that is outside my normal area of knowledge but the new material, made the article shift from what seemed like kind of a high level, boiler plate description to something that looked like an attack article trying to pass as encyclopedic. Like I said, some level of content may make sense but not 50% of the article. I will note that a recent search for articles that mentioned the organization didn't say anything about these controversies. This suggests the material is getting too much weight. Still, I think getting more eyes on the topic would be best. Springee (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also there is lack of context, as the Tampa Bay Times article points out that the Nurse Anesthetist society spent a lot of money lobbying in opposition to the ASA. And the NYT article points out that the *third* highest spender in lobbying was the nurse anesthetist society. And there is no attention paid to the ASA's contention that their lobbying effort is to ensure patient safety. In my opinion, it reads more like an advocacy piece than an encyclopedic piece. That being said, there are some good points here- for example, pointing out the role of money and lobbying in health care in the US is very important. I think the battle between the nurse anesthetists and the anesthesiologists is noteworthy but it would need more context. T g7 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Also the part about the anomalous billing does not represent fully what is stated in the references. T g7 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

In fact, one of the sources states "the authors have stressed that their findings should not be interpreted to indicate fraud because fraud involves intent, which could not be determined." So in my opinion, this is somewhat misrepresentating the reference. T g7 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone just reverted my edit to this. Could others please take a look? Thank you. T g7 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

When I WhoIs’d the IP that reverted you, it says it belongs the the ASA? The geolocate goes quite close to their headquarters. COI editor? Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory about inclusion of anti-Chinese racism in lead

Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Should_we_mention_in_the_lead_the_"increased_anti-Chinese_racism." Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

rT3 and T3 testing

Hi all,

Does anyone know where I’d find a MEDRS source that documents whether high rT3 levels can interfere with Free T3 immunoassay and/or ultrafiltration LC-MSMS tests?

All I can find is information that Free T3 immunoassays are prone to interference and that Free T3 affects rT3 radioimmunoassay tests, but no information about vice-versa.

Edit: This primary source seems concerned that rT3 and T3 could interfere with tests of each other because they are isobars of each other, but satisfied that there are methods to separate them in LC-MS/MS tests. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-019-01724-2

I'll keep looking for more info about current immunoassays and for secondary sources.

Daphne Morrow (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

rT3 is rarely tested in clinical practice, and the utility of it outside of the context of central hypothyroidism vs euthyroid syndrome is highly debated in research. I'm not sure if or where information on this specefically could be found. IntentionallyDense 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had gathered this from my sources so far, it’s good to have it confirmed by others.

I was thinking maybe someone might know a pathology manual or some testing data from the original verification of the tests? Daphne Morrow (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Colostrum health claims NPOV concerns

The colostrum article seems to be NPOV and promotional. I am going to look at it. Would appreciate others as well. T g7 (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Natural childbirth NPOV issues

As I am not an expert, I want to bring to your attention that the article natural childbirth has NPOV issues. See Talk:Natural_childbirth#WP:NPOV_issues. Note also the article Unassisted childbirth describing a related practice. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Viral spread of rumour about HMPV

There's an informal RM at Talk:HMPV outbreak in Northeast Asia (2024–present)#Proposal to Update Article Title. I suggest that people from this wikiproject add some arguments for or against the proposal to rename the article, or with specific proposals for a new name. Boud (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. The article needs more care and attention. People are misunderstanding what is happening and the article mostly relies on non-WP:MERDS-compliant sourcing. I've just removed a bunch of content and done some re-arranging. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC about TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine monoamine release

Hello, all. Just fyi, I received a random Rfc notification due to my signup for the Feedback request service. You can find the Rfc discussion on TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine monoamine release here. (This is just a notification and not an endorsement; in particular, I have not checked it for WP:RFCBEFORE compliance.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions is the more pointful discussion. At a glance, it looks like three editors there know (more or less) what they're talking about, and that they're basically fighting over whether the "old" theory or someone's (a researcher's, not a WIkipedian's) "new" theory should be the dominant one in Misplaced Pages articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

HMPV outbreak in East Asia (2024–present)

As mentioned above, HMPV outbreak in East Asia (2024–present) is a new article with a lot of misunderstanding among editors and insufficient attention to WP:MEDRS.

I've already run into two editing disputes: about the infobox at Talk:HMPV_outbreak_in_East_Asia_(2024–present)#Infobox and about the use of non-MEDRS sources at Talk:HMPV_outbreak_in_East_Asia_(2024–present)#Cases_in_the_West. You may or may not agree with my positions, of course! But more input would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Category name confusing Category:Syndromes of unknown causes

The name of category Category:Syndromes of unknown causes seems grammatically wrong. Shouldn't it be either

• Syndromes of unknown cause

or

• Syndromes with unknown causes

For comparison, see Category:Ailments of unknown cause and Category:Syndromes by cause etc

Noleander (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree the wording is odd. For consistency I think "Syndromes of unknown cause" would make the most sense. IntentionallyDense 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, although some syndromes will have multiple causes. Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion is the place to talk about getting it renamed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Mpox naming

Can we get some more input over at Talk:Mpox#formerly_vs_also Moxy🍁 00:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Split and DAB at Chief cell

Hi folks, I've started a discussion on turning Chief cell into a disambiguation page over at Talk:Chief cell. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Best, Toadspike 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

White pulp of spleen

Could someone with more knowledge of the spleen than me please improve the caption of File:Spleen hyaloserositis - low mag.jpg on Spleen#Pulp? Currently it says the while pulp is "blue", which is supremely unhelpful. Nothing in the image looks blue to me (nor should it, with H&E) – my guess is the white pulp is the lighter (white) areas interspersed in the red pulp. Toadspike 18:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked at this and thought that the "blue" might be the darker (purple-ish) areas. Nephron wrote that caption in 2010, but he's not on wiki much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Input needed regarding lead image for Parkinson's disease

I'm currently going a GAN review for the page which is how I got involved with this conversation. Seeing as the nominator has also expressed intents to take this article to FAC I think additional opinions could be helpful here.

I'd appreciate any opinions over at Talk:Parkinson's disease#Are the first illustrations helpful?.

To summarize the issue, there are questions of wether or not the lead image for Parkinson's disease is an appropriate visual for the disease. IntentionallyDense 03:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi

Could someone who knows the rules on medicine related articles please check Ayurveda (or at least the lead)? I see the article lead describes it as a 'therapy' which implies it has medical benefit.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead of Ayurveda does not contain the word therapy. Did you link the wrong article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think they're referring to the part of the lead that says "Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia. Therapies include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils." Daphne Morrow (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes that part, I though lead was the section before the first heading, maybe I'm wrong... John Cummings (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No, you're right; it's just that when it wasn't in the first sentence, I used ⌘F to search, and searching for therapy doesn't find therapies on the page.

People sometimes use the word modalities in such cases. It's short for treatment modalities. More generally, I question whether calling something therapy really implies medical benefit (rather than medical intent), and whether these have no medical benefit. Yoga has the medical benefit of physical exercise; ayurvedic diets tend to be plant-forward, which has medical benefits; laxatives and enemas are medical treatments; meditation is a mainstream medical recommendation for people with ADHD, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks for your reply, I guess my association is that if something is theraputic then it has efficacy, which is very much is confict with the first paragraphy which says "The theory and practice of ayurveda is pseudoscientific and toxic metals such as lead are used as ingredients in many ayurvedic medicines". John Cummings (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced health claims at Humic substance

Hi folks. I just removed a couple of questionable seeming self-published sources from Humic substance. There are a bunch of health claims and similar claims there which don't seem to be reliably sourced. I don't feel like enough of an expert to critically evaluate the claims made there and don't have the time to devote to this to become knowledgeable enough about it. Can someone here with more familiarity with such topics take a look, maybe adding some sources or removing claims which seem dodgy? Thanks! –jacobolus (t) 02:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

They were originally "badly sourced". I've moved the whole mess to the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

New editor using only primary sources and telling me to not "interfere" in his edits

Scientific observer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wow, this I think is a new one. On Talk:Mpox and elsewhere, this brand new editor is saying repeatedly that I should not interefere...because biased toward interest in vaccines and antibody therapeutics and that the viruses studied (Zika, Ebola, and Hantaviruses) are not related to poxviridae.

Funny enough, I did actually use modified Ankara-strain Vaccinia during my PhD, and did a lot of small-molecule article reviews and similar relevant experiments. lol. But let alone that this is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand of whether or not my input is warranted, and whether this user is following the WP:PAGs...

The main issue is that they are proceeding to add claims about the use of certain off-label drugs and small molecule inhibitors to different poxviridae-adjacent and other related articles (Mycophenolic acid, Mpox, Vaccinia), using only primary sources and WebMD/the FDA page for "off-label drugs". Despite the local (and global consensus) that such primary sources and irrelevant WebMD/etc are not suitable for such claims. They are also starting (and hugely expanding) a few articles with mainly primary sources Zelenirstat, IMP-1088, N-myristoyltransferase inhibitors. In and of itself, it's not an issue to be adding primary articles (which, I suspect, this user may have authored) to wikipedia. The issue is that this user is not understanding the meaning of a proper secondary source.

They also went and found a source I personally authored and removed it from the relevant article (Zika virus).

Could definitely use some outside eyes (and patience) on this one. Thanks. — Shibbolethink 20:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

An IP editor just pointed out on Talk:Mpox that in the 6 days since one of these journal articles was published (Witwit et al in Viruses - "Repurposing Drugs for Synergistic Combination Therapies to Counteract Monkeypox Virus Tecovirimat Resistance") one person or several people (including ( some Chula Vista, California and Scripps Research Institute IP addresses (192.26.252.1)) plus the above username, altogether this/these user(s) have added it as a citation to 12 different wiki articles. See Altmetric. Overall, I'd say there's a pretty good case to be made based on the evidence that this user may be an author on the article. I've tried to caution them accordingly... — Shibbolethink 21:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, obviously you can just ignore any assertions that you shouldn't "interfere" by engaging in ordinary editing activities. Having looked through a few edits, I hope that we are able to keep this new editor and upgrade their knowledge of what Misplaced Pages needs. Perhaps Misplaced Pages:10SIMPLERULES – Oops, that got boldly blanked and redirected away a couple of weeks ago. (The discussion was at Misplaced Pages talk:Ten simple rules for editing Misplaced Pages#Merge and is now at Misplaced Pages talk:Trifecta#Collecting short-rule essays, if anyone's interested.) So perhaps you'd like to point the new editor at s:Ten Simple Rules For Editing Misplaced Pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Isn't it also rather early for an article for his new article on the very early-stage Zelenirstat? One wonders about COI. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps a little bit early? Traditionally, we have encouraged the creation of articles about experimental drugs at Phase 2b, and I assume that the "escalation phase" mentioned is Phase 2a (dose-finding tests). It's also normal at this stage for the articles to say as much about the business side as anything else, and this doesn't mention the company's name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Medical prescription, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Misplaced Pages's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot 00:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Ligamentous laxity

I've just removed substantial copyvio from Ligamentous laxity, and took the opportunity to remove some unsourced material at the same time. It's now a stub and much in need of expert medical attention (which I'm not qualified to provide). Thanks in advance, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Methylsulfonylmethane#Medical_and_dietary_use

This section needs a severe cull to be MEDRS compliant. SmartSE (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I started hacking away at it, but it needs more. On the one hand, someone has put a lot of work into assembling a comprehensive list of prior research. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia. Editors should not be writing review articles here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I jumped in and tried to help by re-organizing the medical claims using as many MED:MOS subheadings as I could with the content already shared. Hope what I did helps a little. Feel free to change it back and keep improving in different ways if you disagree! JenOttawa (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

US federal health agency communications freeze

Agencies subject to the Department of Health & Human Services directive include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. "HHS official halts CDC reports and health communications for Trump team review". NBC News. 22 January 2025. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
2. Goodman, Brenda; Tirrell, Meg (22 January 2025). "Trump administration directs federal health agencies to pause communications". CNN. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
3. Stobbe, Mike; Aleccia, Jonel (22 January 2025). "Trump administration freezes many health agency reports and online posts". AP News. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
4. Sun, Lena H.; Diamond, Dan; Roubein, Rachel (22 January 2025). "Trump officials pause health agencies' communications, citing review". The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
5. Rosenbluth, Teddy; Mandavilli, Apoorva; Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (23 January 2025). "Trump Administration Temporarily Mutes Federal Health Officials". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this will affect the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi all,

I've just realised it says at the top to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor. I'm Daphne, I'm working on becoming an experienced editor in science and medical topics. I'm currently working towards getting Hashimoto's Thyroiditis up to an appropriate level to submit for good article review, which I intend to do once I've drawn a diagram comparing healthy and hashimotos histological features. I would appreciate any tips if you have them. Daphne Morrow (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, Daphne! Thank you for introducing yourself. Your contributions to thyroid hormone articles are appreciated, and your significant expansion of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis is impressive. I will share my comments on Talk:Hashimoto's thyroiditis. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press