Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:40, 23 February 2016 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits →Advice for Rare Disease Day Edit-a-thon: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 22:52, 23 February 2016 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →RfC: References for anatomical images (or other images) at the Human sexuality article?: new sectionNext edit →
Line 336: Line 336:
There is a pretty neat {{mdash}} which has good summaries of many diseases. It gets routine updates with the goal to cover that list with articles and has specific information about Nordic and European patient groups. Also there is which is very good and integrated into ]. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC) There is a pretty neat {{mdash}} which has good summaries of many diseases. It gets routine updates with the goal to cover that list with articles and has specific information about Nordic and European patient groups. Also there is which is very good and integrated into ]. ]<span style="font-size: .90em;">] ]</span> 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
* I vote for Morgellons, chronic Lyme disease and adrenal fatigue. They don't even exist - you can't get much rarer than that! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC) * I vote for Morgellons, chronic Lyme disease and adrenal fatigue. They don't even exist - you can't get much rarer than that! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

== RfC: References for anatomical images (or other images) at the ] article? ==

Opinions are needed on the matter: ]. A ] for it is . ] (]) 22:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:52, 23 February 2016

Shortcut

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.

List of archives

Outbreak-related requested move discussions

CDC map of Zika virus distribution as of 15 January 2016

There are a few outbreak-related WP:RM discussions going on.

Feedback would be welcome! larryv (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Requested move 26 January 2016, seems to be resolved--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Note was moved to Zika virus outbreak (2015–present)( per different than move stated above)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

WebMed Central

While cleaning up WP:JCW, I landed on something called WebMedCentral . I visited the website, and saw a pretty astonishing claim: "Guaranteed biomedical publication within 48 hours".

Is this is shit journal/website? Because if so, there is at least

which cite those journals/website. Possibly more. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: I found this discussion through Headbomb's post at WT:AJ. It looks like the website publishes "all but the clearly irrelevant and unscientific work" within 48 hours, but then only conducts a peer review after the articles are published (see this link for their peer review policy). Once articles have been successfully peer reviewed by two editors, then they are moved to the "peer reviewed" portion of the website. I primarily publish articles in the humanities, but I have never seen anything like this. The website's "shoot first, ask questions later" approach makes me seriously question the reliability of articles published here. At the very least, I think articles published on this website should be considered self published sources for the purposes of assessing their reliability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Post-publication peer review is a legitimate, albeit uncommon, publication model in the sciences; there's been more interest in it in the last few years due in part to the file drawer problem. (F1000Research is a relatively established example in the biomedical field; only papers that have been reviewed and approved get indexed in pubmed.) I recall WebMedCentral getting criticism when it launched a couple of years ago, but I don't know where it stands now. Certainly any citations to papers that haven't been reviewed should be removed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
"We hope that these articles will be indexed by appropriate bodies in near future." meaning they aren't. Combined with the typos, and semi-hijacked of the WedMD and PubMedCentral brands, this seems very predatory indeed. Going to ping @DGG:, @Randykitty: on this. Maybe Beale's list has some info on these journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Beall's list doesn't pop up anything, but here is the Beall-style criticism it received from a PLoS editor. The quality of the offerings on their website says enough, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting. The "file drawer problem" certainly exists in the humanities as well, and WebMedCentral says that it uses its model "to make the process of publishing more inclusive, efficient, accountable, economical, unbiased and transparent". In the humanities, websites like SSRN help disseminate meaningful scholarship in an unbiased forum, but I'm not sure if there is an equivalent forum in medicine or the hard sciences. In any event, thanks for the explanation! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
While I suppose a post-publication peer review model could work in principle, I have difficulty identifying any extant successful examples—and I would be very reluctant to hold up F1000Research as a role model. Perhaps it's just because I do a lot of weeding of fringe content, but my experience with F1000 is mostly in its role as an outlet for papers about Morgellons disease. My understanding is that F1000 collects their publishing fee as soon as the paper goes up on their website, and peer review happens later...eventually, maybe. Even then, it is explicitly the responsibility of a paper's authors to suggest peer reviewers to F1000 . TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, they and Frontiers have both had some bad barrel-scraping moments. I don't think the F1000 process of soliciting reviewer suggestions is much different than any journal that accepts such recommendations (a lot, at least in my little niche). A colleague sent them a file-drawer paper awhile back and the reviews were slow to arrive, but the experience was otherwise ordinary. The topic was technical and pretty fringeproof, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Digging somewhat deeper, you can find well over 1500 articles in those journals. How many have passed their peer-review process? A measly 31 apparently. This may indicate that the peer-review system is rigorous, but holy cow this seems like a cynical ploy to capitalize on the fact that people probably will not suspect that they accept literally anything for publication. Did you publish in a peer-reviewed venue? Yes you technically did! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nearly all cited articles were non-reviewed/failed review. I removed those. The two remaining references to WebMedCentral are

I lack the expertise to determine if those are appropriate sources or not for the claims they are attached to. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The material they publish must be judged by the reputation of the author and the reviewer.There seem to be three types of review: the author suggests reviewers (and this is often the case in traditional journals also), One of their editors can review -- and that review is apparently anonymous; I am not convinced the quality of their editors is sufficiently high to be taken on faith, as we must in a traditional journal. . Anyone else can add a review also. . Looking at the two items in question:

Neonatal_tetanus. All 3 types of review are present. The reviews show the qualifications of the reviewer. None of them are experts in the subject. On the other handm what it documents is trivial. I'd remove the sentence & ref altogether.
Phenethylamine. This is a review paper, not a research paper. It doesn't document anything specific. The reviewers, tho not specialists, considered it a fairly mediocre review. We do not really need it, but there's no reason to remove it, since PMC accepted it. BTW, I think the style of the WP article with its multiple long quotations, is pretty awful. I don't know if the Medical editors are encouraging this nowadays. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I added that review to the phenethylamine article a while back; every medical statement it cites is independently supported by at least 1 other review, but the citation is a pubmed-indexed review so I don't see any issue with MEDRS compliance. Quoting the supporting text from the citation is simply my personal preference, although I usually only do this when citing multiple statements from a single review or the cited statement is rather technical. So long as there is direct attribution, which is provided by the cite template, quotations are acceptable so long as the length isn't excessive. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by DGG's comment "...there's no reason to remove it, since PMC accepted it" and Seppi333's comment "...the citation is a pubmed-indexed review so I don't see any issue with MEDRS compliance". These seem to imply a level of endorsement or quality that isn't suggested by the WP:MEDRS guideline and certainly isn't how I understand these resources. I realize this is a bit of a non sequitur in this debate about WMC, and these comments may not reflect the users' true intent, but I think a shared understanding of reliable sources is needed (and IMHO there's much more to it than the pubmed or PMC inclusion than the comments I've cited might suggest). — soupvector (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, actually; I didn't word it precisely. My meaning was only that we could justify keeping it, and there is no inherent reason why we must remove it. But there is no reason why we need add references to all reviews on a subject--we can select the best. One of the factors is where the review was published. And even the reviewers for this journal didn't think the review was particularly good. The only reason we might want to use it is if there was no other recent open access review. Though some medical articles here may look otherwise, we do not need in WP articles to include every available reference. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The name of the website alone is a red flag. As Headbomb mentions, it is an attempt to trick readers into conflating the established websites PubMed Central and WebMD with this one. The purpose of their immediate publishing model is to make money as quickly as possible and encourage researchers who just want a fast publication to submit their work to WebMDCentral.
While much of the content might be of reasonable quality, I suspect that a lot is substandard. Headbomb's discovery that only 31 papers have received two satisfactory reviews is an indictment of the website's methods. Axl ¤ 12:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
agree w/ Axl--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nanomedicine

Got an editor probably WP:SELFCITE-ing content about what seem novel applications of nanomedicine as cancer therapy. I'm not sure how established this is - could probably do with eyes from somebody who knows more ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And I have seen new accounts adding refs to Frontier journals such as here. The refs do not always support the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis....reminder

last video date is 2-20-16 for Diverticulitis need editor reviews, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been giving feedback, but I don't recall seeing notice that new videos are being posted. Are they? Doc James have you seen any? Seems to me that the Osmosis folks could provide links to the videos on the same page as the scripts (and I'd prefer that they not remove the links to the scripts, since we've contributed). I've commented on the Talk page. — soupvector (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay will flag this to them. Videos are on commons here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Essay being added to ref section of articles

Template:Research helpI see a link to a help essay called Misplaced Pages:Research help being added to many med articles...even comes with a nice icon to make sure your eyes are drawn to it. Not sure how other feel about this...but I personally see a problem here. Firstly i dont believe a link to a project essay in the content of a main space article is a good idea ever (we have recommendations as to this point WP:LINKSTYLE). I also dont think the placement is a good idea either ....in the ref section? people will think these leads to more sources on the topic at hand..not an essay about Misplaced Pages. This info in this link can already be found under "About Misplaced Pages" ...at best they should be a proposal to have it in the left side bar. Having a link of this nature that the average reader will not use in the ref section is odd. Many other reasons I dont think this is a good idea....anyways see Misplaced Pages talk:Research help if you have a comment. Just dont see how this will help our readers...so many other essays could be linked like this for med articles...i would love a link to Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer seen on every page personally but ...we dont spam essays in this fashion. -- Moxy (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it would be on the Talk pages, definitely not in main space - but this is a much wider problem as other subject versions have been spammed much more widely. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a self-reference and does not belong in the article space. I would support its integration in the {{WPMED}} template on the talk page, but not as is being done currently.
@Barbara (WVS): (is Bfpage) might have established consensus for this in another forum - comments appreciated. JFW | T@lk 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I think this was being trialed on a small number of articles. I do not think there was consensus to add it to a large number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It is The Reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Misplaced Pages.

‎

  • Some of us were in favor of adding this to quite a few articles, and there was at least pretty strong consensus to add it to all anatomy articles. It includes the link to a remarkably well-referenced and researched information page on how to make use of Misplaced Pages materials—and I am unable to point to any similar essay that comes near. We can presume that it is not directed to editors, but to readers of Misplaced Pages who are not accustomed to analyzing sources in the same fashion. Adding it to the talk-page entirely defeats the purpose and makes it irrelevant. Frankly, there is too much opposition to change on Misplaced Pages, even when that change is for the good of the project and really stands to benefit the reader, and I still support this. CFCF 💌 📧 21:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
This past talk was mentioned before..I cant find it...would love to see it. Where people made aware that is was to be in the ref section that has small text? It has a big icon and normal lettering. Why was this not proposed for the left hand menu? I think most have a problem with an essay linked in the contents of an article over a place people would look for that type of info. Just an odd place as many people get to the ref section by clicking the refs in the article...thus takes them past the header. I do see a great value for this in the side menu. As i said above having the Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer on every med page I think would be more infoamtive to the average reader over a link for just a segment of the population. -- Moxy (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The original discussion can be found here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_74#Piloting_TWL_WP:Research_help_in_Reference_Sections. I understand your trepidation, but I get the feeling noone uses the left bar. Misplaced Pages's layout is unfortunately outdated, and with readers more used to modern layouts I think we're going to get even fewer users looking at the bar. I know we tried to tally the views these links were getting, maybe someone else involved in the the original discussion knows more? CFCF 💌 📧 00:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 
  • i have no objection as it is a pretty unobtrusive link. The notion of helping people think in a scholarly way is a happy one. however i also I think the chance of the link having much impact is miniscule and i will not be adding it to any articles i work on. it is not for me to tell people who want to add it, how to spend their time, but i would advise adding it to the highest trafficked articles first, where it might have some impact. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • And if traffic to the link is very small than adding it further is likely not necessary. But it is worth a trial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • A few comments:
    1. This project isn't actually being done by WPMED. WPMED doesn't own medicine-related pages, and other people are welcome to edit those pages without getting "permission" from us. Apparently, some of them are.
    2. It's not a WikiProject essay; it's a help page.
    3. The sensible way to find out whether this location works as well as the sidebar would be a controlled trial, which you could always propose. I doubt that it will; firstly, there's no good evidence that regular readers look at the sidebar, and secondly, the sidebar doesn't even exist on the mobile site, which is where more than 30% of page views happen – and probably more than 30% page views among key demographics for this, such as students.
    4. Hiding information for readers on the talk page, which we know non-editors almost never look at, would be illogical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    Did someone say this was being done by WPMED?
    The question is will this template be clicked on were it is right now?
    Mobile readership is much more than 30%. In fact this week it was 53% mobile / 47% desktop among our top 5000 articles.
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Ping Astinson (WMF) — who might not be aware of the discussion here. CFCF 💌 📧 22:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    Hi. Sorry for not responding sooner, most of the conversants also participated at WT:Research help, thus far. We are testing the template, that is all, on a limited set of articles (with BAG approving 5,000 pilots on each WPMIL and WPMED articles). The test is focusing on the broad clusters of articles, because we don't want to just be stacking our impact, on high traffic articles. In part, we want to figure out if this is reasonable thing to include in all articles, and/or where in the interface its best to deploy the template. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ventricular remodeling page

This page seems to be of general poor quality and perhaps would better come under the title of cardiac remodelling. Incorrectly says that remodelling is an exclusively pathological state. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2300466/pdf/nhj1612900.pdf

I'm new to the medicine page so I'm not sure if flagging it like this follows the correct protocol but it is of quite poor quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan Haslam (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aidan, and welcome. We don't have complicated protocols here. You can talk about any article you want – good, bad, strange, fun, whatever. Please WP:Be bold and try to improve the article and add sources to it. It'd be nice to see a ==Diagnosis== section, for example. (How do you find out if this is going on?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
article needs quite a bit of work and should be moved to "Cardiac remodeling"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Help on wooishly written medical article

I came across this article after reading something by an antivaccine activist. It does not seem to be written in a[REDACTED] like manner and seems to be pushing an alt med view. I am not familiar with[REDACTED] writing to know if I am correct. I wonder if someone could take a look at it. Thanks.

Fred R. Klenner 96.41.40.245 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The article is indeed in need of serious work to be of adequate quality. I've trimmed a good amount of unreferenced or poorly referenced material to start. I encourage fellow Wikiproject Medicine veterans to have a look. Thank you for bringing this to our attention 96. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it something to send to AFD? JFW | T@lk 18:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
AFD? 97.93.61.107 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:AFD, or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. We tend to talk in Misplaced Pages:Shortcuts (or perhaps you'd rather call it WP:GIBBERISH  ;-) when we aren't thinking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, the science and medicine are pretty badly slanted, inasmuch as they completely omit any reality-based information whatsoever. The "life and career" section appears to be plagiarized, as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks folks. This is quite an education. I found another badly written article if anyone would like to look. I will watch what people do and maybe I can learn how to ID the issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Argyrol 97.93.61.107 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

History of Medicine Editathon in person or remote participation welcome

You are all invited to a history of Medicine editathon in Edinburgh or remote. 16th to 18th Feb. For those who can't make it to Edinburgh at such short notice, this is an opportunity to request photographs be taken of various buildings and of material owned by the University of Edinburgh. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

thank you for info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Orthopedic spamorama

Stumbled over Distraction osteogenesis and Limb lengthening methods tonight, and there is also Ilizarov apparatus which I didn't get to look at yet. So, so driven by company editors. We really need to keep our eye on orthopedic device articles more.. I know most folks here are interested in diseases and drugs, but hey, doesn't hurt to ask.

I just blanked the Limb lengthening methods article as there was literally nothing specific left when I got done removing the promo content, and redirected it to Distraction osteogenesis so that is the article that really could use love. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this. Will take a look when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

References supporting our medical content

Change in number of references to Misplaced Pages's medical content from 2009 to 2015. Data collected by Andrew West

Hey All. Some updated data on the number of references support our content. We are now over 1.4 M Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Doc James Is this number of citations made or number of sources cited? It must be citations made, right, and the sources are duplicated many times, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't a better comparison be the number of references per total medical article bytes vs. time? The number of medical articles (and medical content within articles) has increased over time so the absolute number of references doesn't tell us if we're keeping up. Sizeofint (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the red portion of the bars be labeled "other" rather than "all" while the total height of the bar represents "all" so that "English" is not double counted? If so, it appears that citations in foreign language medical articles is growing faster than in the English Misplaced Pages. This may be a result of medical translation taskforce that is translating citation rich English medical articles into other languages. Boghog (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Top of the red bar represents "all" but good point other would be better. And yes agree that the translation task force likely represents a large part of the reason.
This is the total number of citations rather than the number of sources. Thus each time a source is used it is counted. More data is here
Yes we could take the number of bytes and divide it by the number of references to get bytes per reference. We have done this in the past and reference density has also been increasing. Have not done it again yet.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Zika

Zika virus disease
Biology Transmission Electron Microscopic image of Zika virus
Diagnosis and treatment
Outbreaks
Control and prevention
Organizations and institutions
Societal context

I just started {{Zika}} to help organize the articles on the subject. Haven't put it into any article yet, as I first wanted to get some feedback here. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, apart from the diagnosis and treatment section. Strip that and you've got my support to implement it. CFCF 💌 📧 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
All very nice. CFCF What's wrong with the treatment section? Why not have Treatment of Zika? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
When you have a topic that could fall under a number of titles I prefer not to redlink it. As you say it could be Treatment of Zika, Zika treatment, Diagnosis of Zika, etc. We can't be sure any of these articles will be created, or which of them will. CFCF 💌 📧 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Only some of the items in that section are redlinks. Would you remove the blue links, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

PLOS blog post about Wiki's medical content, also - Year of Science

Our own Hildabast shares this in PLOS.

She references WP:AAAS2016, a recent Misplaced Pages meetup at the 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science national conference. This is the first of 12 planned Misplaced Pages:Year of Science events at academic conferences. Right now, there is no medical conference outreach planned, and the target conferences are hard sciences. The "Year of Science" is a mostly United States outreach effort managed by the Wiki Education Foundation. I am posting to this board because I feel that any outreach in science is a benefit to everyone here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

great info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Basaglian psychiatry

Over at the apparently sleepy page Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, I've posted a request about the article Morire di classe (a book coedited by Franco Basaglia) and a couple of questions related to "Democratic Psychiatry" (founded/championed by Basaglia). If you know anything about this kind of thing, please take a look and respond there. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


Flow and pressure, fluid responsiveness

Need some advice on the naming of an article. There is a body of research developing around measuring blood flow in small blood vessels and targeting this in critical illness. The easiest (and most widely studied) part of the microvasculature is under the tongue. I am unsure what to call an article on this subject - sublingual microcirculatory flow index or microcirculatory flow image analysis or something like that? doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1213-9 is a recent reference. JFW | T@lk 14:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

sublingual microcirculatory image analysis per ...(microvascular could be used as well...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to skip the "sublingual" part in the article title, if that seems reasonable to you. "Sublingual X" is going to make some people think that they need to start a new article for "X" in any other body part, and it sounds like that's probably not warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with WAID on this one. If Microcirculatory image analysis ever got so large that it needed splitting, we could create the "Sublingual ..." daughter article. But I suspect that's some way off. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Watching categories

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T9148

There's been a change to how categories interact with watchlists. You can now see people adding and removing categories from articles, in your watchlist, by watching the category page.

This feature is turned off by default. You can change that by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and un-ticking the item "Hide categorization of pages". Alternatively, there is a way to change it temporarily on the watchlist page itself, by checking or un-checked "page categorization" in the "Hide:" list.

I know that several of you have long wished for this feature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

very good feature WAID, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree - that's a pretty useful feature. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the tip Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Stanford medical student op-ed

Seems that Stanford med students don't go to class anymore. See

The Misplaced Pages University School of Medicine

"We must ask ourselves if Stanford, or any medical school for that matter, can create a better curriculum than the combination of Khan Academy, Pathoma, Lippencott’s, Goljan’s Rapid Pathology Review, First Aid, Strong Medicine, Kaplan, USMLE World, SketchyMicro, FireCracker, Doctors-In-Training, Picmonic, UpToDate, MedScape and even Misplaced Pages."

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

As a medical school professor, I share the commentator's low opinion of traditional medical school syllabi; their parallel development and maintenance seems inefficient and unlikely to produce a high-quality product. Instead, faculty should be contributing to a crowd-sourced, shared syllabus. I see WP as one model to consider, if not the right home for such a syllabus. I disagree with the commentator's suggestion that preclinical teaching should be abandoned altogether, rather it should be re-examined continually in a mission-based evaluation process. I would like to see these efforts synergize with WPMED, but it's not clear to me how to make that happen. — soupvector (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikiversity is a possible home for such shared development of teaching resources.
Reforming medical school is probably outside of our scope. As for the author's POV, he might be be interested in Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine in New York, which requires all first-year students to train as EMTs and ride ambulances – certainly an experience that cannot be replaced with a website or a classroom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
And it is hard to get a human cadaver to dissect outside of medical school. Or patients to examine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems that it is even difficult to get a cadaver to dissect inside medical school these days .75.152.109.249 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

I was clicking around and found myself on the Anti-psychiatry page and... it's a mess. I didn't know much of anything about antipsychiatry, but the blatant character attacks and POV pushing were red huge flags, so I started checking sources and none that I've checked so far have anything to do with antipsychiatry. I got the sense from the talkpage that there's a lot of poorly sourced information backing up ideas about psychiatry that stem from Scientology. Their beliefs do have a place in the article... but with proper sourcing and NPOV. There are other POVs being pushed as well. Apparently it's a very contentious topic. Now that I've read up a bit about it, it's actually quite interesting. But cleaning up the article will be a lot to tackle... so I'm posting this on the relevant wikiprojects in the hopes that others might find it interesting too and want to help. :) I've started a discussion about it at Talk:Anti-psychiatry#Sources. Permstrump (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Known causes of human cancer by organ site

Would this figure by IARC be a good addition to Cancer? Note that the image of the organs would need to be replaced for copyright reasons. --Leyo 01:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

the source is certainly good(the image seems fine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but would it remain in Cancer Causes of cancer if added? --Leyo 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's a very legible image, given the size restraints. (Imagine that full-page drawing with lots of small text, only three inches wide.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be needed to be viewed at full size.
Well, I will leave the decision whether or not to add the image or to link to the PDF to the WikiProject Medicine. --Leyo 15:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

P-value fallacy

A subject relevant to WP:MED that I came across recently and decided to write an article on. Feedback and further editing is appreciated! I focused on the statistical aspects, so if anyone is interested, information that e.g. relates the subject to medicine more directly might be useful. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's send this to WP:DYK. It's rare to have something about stats on the front page. Can anyone think of a "hook" for the "Did you know...that?" line? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
"Lies, damn lies and ..." -Roxy the dog™ woof 07:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I wonder whether the article could be tweaked. Some of the current text is perhaps contentious, like the claim Bayesian methods are generally better. Bondegezou (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Given other editors are saying the same thing on the Talk page, I've slapped a "disputed" tag on the article. Perhaps DYK isn't appropriate until we've smoothed these issues out? Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Is that "contentious because it disagrees with my personal beliefs" or "contentious because I can give you three gold-plated sources on both sides"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I consider it one of the most important articles related to medical results, because the media really needs to be aware of . Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Contentious" because I can give three gold-plated references in both sides. A quick search reveals: , , Bondegezou (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
For the record, the article isn't intended to take any sides on the frequentism-Bayesianism debate, which is what those sources address. If the comment on Bayes factors is causing problems, I'm fine with removing or qualifying that (I've said this at the article too). @Bondegezou, I'd appreciate feedback/edits towards what you'd like to see. If you could move the dispute tag to specific inline references, that would also be helpful. Sunrise (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I and others have said a lot on the Talk page already. I think the article is classic WP:CFORK: it's become a dumping ground for various different critiques of p-values, and the core material largely just takes a pro-Bayesian/anti-frequentist position. If the article isn't intended to take any sides on the frequentism-Bayesianism debate, it's failing in that regard, and it's pretty difficult for the article not to take sides when it is titled "p-value fallacy"! As an example, the article currently says towards the end, "For example, p-values do not address the probability of the null hypothesis being true or false, which can only be done with the Bayes factor". Well, that's what a Bayesian would say. I could write a "Bayes fallacy" article saying the underlying premise of the Bayesian approach is inherently flawed. As it says in the Bayesian probability article, "For the frequentist a hypothesis is a proposition (which must be either true or false), so that the frequentist probability of a hypothesis is either one or zero."
There is lots of debate in statistics and beyond about p-values, which should be covered on Misplaced Pages, and there is good content in this article, but why not stick it in the p-value article where (a) people will see it, and (b) it can be contextualised in an NPOV way? Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I've added some more specific tags to aid discussion. I think a central problem with the article is whose fallacy is it? Some of the article is talking about common misunderstandings of the p-value, i.e. the so-called fallacy is an error on the part of the user and can be avoided with education. But some of the article describes problems as inherent to the nature of the p-value, i.e. the fallacy is unavoidable, p-values are doomed. The former is less contentious, but should be re-written to be clear that we mean misinterpretations. The latter is more contentious and comes back to Bayesian-frequentist debates. Bondegezou (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Copy and paste in Chrome

I am struggling to get the copy and paste function to work in Chrome. Not sure if others having similar issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Found a work around. You cut in one edit and than save. And than you make a second edit to paste. It is slow :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I assume you've restarted your PC, James? Copy & paste is working fine for me in Chrome 48.0.2564.116 m (it has recently updated). Otherwise the only other thing I can suggest is to see whether temporarily disabling the javascript in User:Doc James/common.js makes any difference. --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
K will give it a try. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been having issues with my browser crashing over the past few months when I try to paste text in certain articles when using chrome. Pretty irritating sometimes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been having that with Chrome too, intermittently. It is frustrating. I get the cursor where i want, hit control v and the tab crashes and i get that stupid icon. The content is on my clipboard and if i open the page in firefox and hit edit i can paste it right in. It is a chrome issue. I use a mac; don't know if a is a chrome/PC issue. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly how it happens for me. I suppose I should have clarified that it's the tab and not the entire browser when it happens. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyone willing to try it in the visual editor and tell me if you've got the same problems there? If it's on our side, then I know the team that gets to fix it...  ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Maryanne Demasi

This BLP subject is a presenter/science reporter on the Catalyst TV program. She got involved in a controversy over statins in a prior program, and has just weighed into whether Wi-Fi is safe.

As these are medical or health related issues, I think a copy edit by editors with expertise in medical areas may be needed. Secondly, she is now copping a backlash re the Wi-Fi issue, and might be subjected to negative or POV editing. FYI. 220 of 11:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Just did a little bit of tidying up, but, yes, definitely needs some input. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Saw that, thanks. I tidied the lead a bit. I forgot to mention the Wi-Fi report got a mention tonight on Media Watch, also on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's channels. 220 of 11:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Adding sources to the lead is a reasonable practice but not required as long as the text in question is supported in the body of the article"

Is what WP:MEDMOS currently says, echoing WP:LEAD. In fact our normal practice goes well beyond that. Isn't it time to adjust that & say something that better reflects what we actually do? The question has been raised at Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Why_all_the_refs_in_the_lead.3F. I'd propose:

  • "In Misplaced Pages articles generally adding sources to the lead is a reasonable practice but not required as long as the text in question is supported in the body of the article . Because of the particular importance of accuracy in medical articles, it is generally expected that citations are included in their leads, as in the rest of the article."

Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm much more comfortable with the proposed language. Very often, leads contain assertions that aren't in the article (perhaps they shouldn't, but they often do) - let alone supported by a source in the article. Also, often I find what I want in the lede, so don't see why I have to go scouring through the article for the source (which often, as I say, isn't there anyway). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I dislike refs in the lead because they impair readability, and don't want to make them mandatory. Instead of the second sentence above I would suggest, In cases where editors disagree, it is generally best to err on the side of adding references. If other editors have added high-quality references in good faith, it is usually best to leave them in place. Looie496 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
But they are "generally expected", by long custom and consensus, in medical articles. The wording was chosen to avoid making them mandatory. Can you point to any case where an editor has objected to including them, other than the e-cig discussion I just linked to? I don't usually cite up the lead in other articles I write, but always in medical ones. I'm ok with having your sentences as well, after mine. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
They're not "generally expected" by actual readers in any article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Require citations in lead of medical articles The premise behind not requiring them is that the community is capable of verifying that the content in the lead is also in the bottom and also verified. In fact, this is not possible. The community has never been able to manage this. It is a myth that it ever was possible, and a legacy from a time when Misplaced Pages did not require citations generally and from before communities like medicine started to examine the issue more closely.
I challenge the premise that it is possible to keep track of content in the lead without citations. It is difficult enough to verify content with citations, and unreasonable to suggest that some kind of institutional editor memory or notes on the talk page are sufficient to make it easy for readers and Misplaced Pages editors to quickly match content in the lead to citations without repeating the citations in the lead. I have two controversial opinions against Misplaced Pages policy - one is that content in Misplaced Pages should be matched with citations to existing published sources, and the second is that everywhere, including in infoboxes and the lead, information should be matched with citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • it is best to have citations in lead per reasons given by Bluerasberry...additionally I think it benefits the reader the most --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a good idea to try to set up a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that contradicts standard practice on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Whatever guidance is given in MEDMOS, I don't think it would be a good idea to alter what general guidance already exists without a very good reason. The present guidance is located at WP:LEADCITE and WP:WHENNOTCITE. In a nutshell, that boils down to "decide it on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". It's also worth remembering that the lead not only summarises the rest of the article, it also introduces and defines it, which means that some content may be unique to the lead - and hence not cited elsewhere. --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose We can't really go past LEAD and require this, in my view. I understand the desire among some to do this (Doc James pays mind to how people use WP, and many use mobile, and many read only the lead), and I hear Bluerasberry's point as well. We can strongly suggest it but we cannot require it, in my view. We can't become a walled garden.
however on the specific issue of their use in the lead of the e-cigs, LEAD does say that they should be used if anything in the lead is challenged and given how every jot and tittle of that article has been fought over, they should be used in the lead, absolutely. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are you opposing? The proposal is only to say it is "generally expected", which if anything is milder than the "strongly suggest it" you say you support. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing specific language when I said "strongly suggest". Sorry to confuse. I don't like "generally expected" as it is not true in the RW nor even here at WP:MED. I would accept something like: "Because many users read only the lead, and because content about health can be complex, it is useful to provide inline citations to support content about health in the lead." something like that. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I also want to re-iterate that this discussion has nothing to do with the issue at play at the e-cig article. Plain old WP:LEAD is what is at play there. It is of course fine to talk about how to tweak MEDMOS but there is nothing at stake for the e-cig people in this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Request review of HIV posters in Commons

example poster which is not copyrightable due to containing only simple text and shapes

Currently there is a deletion review in Wikimedia Commons of 2600 educational posters from the 1980s-90s giving HIV/AIDS information. I am posting to request that anyone please go into Commons, browse through the posters, and if you see one that does not contain copyrighted art, then please make a post that it should not be deleted. The issue is lack of copyright. However, if a poster contains only text and geometric shapes, then it is considered to be in the public domain.

Also, the organization which provided these images would recognize feedback and I would appreciate any positive comments about their attempt at

Previously I had shared this poster project as follows -

Here is a recap - Wellcome Trust is one of the largest medical nonprofit foundations in the world. They have a large archive including public health materials, and they have shared more than a million health media files in Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Category:Wellcome Collection. Among the files they have provided, they shared these 2600 historical HIV/AIDS educational posters. This was an unprecedented donation because the art came from 2000+ organizations and artists, and I think Wikimedia projects have never before had an organization claim to have managed so many relationships including copyright claims. In the end, Wellcome presumed too much. On reflection they have announced that in fact, they did not control the copyright to these HIV posters, and that they spoke incorrectly when they said that they did. Right now they are saying that their copyright agreement with the organizations is that the original copyright holders are demanding CC-By-NC-ND. At this point, my perspective is that everyone involved is confused about copyright. The big lesson that I take away from this is that the most respected librarians and archivists at the best funded archives in the world have a different understanding of copyright than an average Misplaced Pages contributor. It surprises me a little that many organizations are not conscious of the copyright of the content they hold. I encourage Wikipedians who try to negotiate with institutions to have clear discussions with staff about the meaning of copyright and what it means to share content on Misplaced Pages. I really appreciate the Wellcome Trust taking initiative to try to share good content with Wikimedia projects. They were the first to attempt an innovative sharing model. In the end, they realized that they tried to donate something that was not theirs to share. Because the HIV posters were never theirs, all of the posters that are not in the public domain will need to be deleted from Commons in the next week or so. The posters will remain on the Wellcome Trust website as CC-By-NC-ND.

The Wellcome Library participants in this are the best. I appreciate their enthusiasm, support, and willingness to try new things.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Advice for Rare Disease Day Edit-a-thon

Hello, I'm helping to put together an edit-a-thon (my first) around Rare Disease Day (http://www.rarediseaseday.org/). One of our goals is to add information to about how people can find community support. We'd like to have a few "ideal" sources on hand for our volunteers. Does anyone know of resources related to support for rare diseases we could reference during our edit-a-thon, or any advice about this event in general? Ckoerner (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

See http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=rare+diseases&cat=all&all=no.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a pretty neat Rare disease database — which has good summaries of many diseases. It gets routine updates with the goal to cover that list with articles and has specific information about Nordic and European patient groups. Also there is Orphanet which is very good and integrated into Template:Infobox medical condition. CFCF 💌 📧 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: References for anatomical images (or other images) at the Human sexuality article?

Opinions are needed on the matter: Talk:Human sexuality#Should the anatomy images or other images have references?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions Add topic