Talk:Lesion

Comments

It appears that the main content of this article was lifted directly from (on March 16, 2006):

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4135

This looks like a clear copyright violation, as this article was available on medterms.com from at least 2003:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030714122000/http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4135

Their terms of use clearly forbid this use:

No part of any information copyrighted by MedicineNet, Inc. may be copied, downloaded, stored in a retrieval system, distributed, displayed, transmitted or otherwise used in digital or electronic form for any purpose, except as explicitly authorized by the terms and conditions posted on MedicineNet.com.

From: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=21453

This content needs to be removed, replaced, or (at the very least) cleared with MedicineNet and attributed correctly.

161.55.180.141 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the entire article. However, I'd like someone else to look over it, which is why I put an expert tag on the article instead of a cleanup tag. --Mdwyer 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

---

It's incorrect to say that a lesion occurs most frequently in regions a, b and c, especially without justification. A puncture wound can occur anywhere. A tumour can occur in a much larger range of tissues than are listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I don't mean to be rude, but I hope someone is looking at this. As someone who is curious about lesions and doesn't know anything about them, this article confused me a lot. The syntax is off in a major and ambiguous way and it seems like key details are missing. Many of the examples seem to be exclusive to brains without saying "brain lesion". Just totally confusing. I hope someone can clarify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.115.248 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I also think this page is confusing. I have removed the History section and the non-cited references that were added at the same time. I would also be tempted to remove the other sections that are specific to brain lesions.Young trotsky (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

synonym

isn't "lesion" just a fancy name for "damage"?? What difference does it make to say "He has a lesion in Brodmann area 12." instead of "He has a damaged Brodmann area 12."-- ExpImp^talkcon 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to say that your first sentence is equal to "He has damage in Brodmann area 12," but I think your second sentence says something slightly different. Damage causes a lesion, and a lesion is also evidence of past damage. But I think the problem is that you can have damage without having a lesion. A puncture wound isn't really abnormal tissue, so it isn't a lesion, but it is still damage. --Mdwyer 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, yes it is just a fancy name for "damage." From Taber's Encyclopedic Medical Dictionary: "1. A circumscribed area of pathologically altered tissue. 2. An injury or wound. 3. A single infected patch in a skin disease." Etymologically, it comes from the Latin laesio meaning "wound." I think the sine qua non for a lesion is that it must be visible damage -- either grossly or microscopically. For instance, a DNA mutation causing disease wouldn't be considered a lesion since it's not visible by conventional techniques. —Brim 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, by that definition, I'm wrong about a puncture not being a lesion. That's why I've got the need an expert tag up there. Brim, from what you know and have read, do you think the expert flag can be removed? --Mdwyer 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite looks good. As for a puncture wound being a lesion or not... keep in mind that lesion is a loosely-defined word and it's often thrown around without much thought to it. I doubt that most medical professionals would call a puncture wound a lesion, since it's just a little bit too fancy of a term for something as mundane as a puncture wound, but technically I guess it fits. I think it's safe to remove the expert tag. —Brim 17:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As this is still somehow on the talk page, I'll answer, though the topic should be archived. From the article, a lesion is specifically abnormal change or damage in tissues - not cells or organs. Tissues being a level in-between cells and organs. A cut, swelling or broken bone is abnormal change or damage to an organ, but as the tissues themselves at a microscopic level aren't changed or damaged, these aren't lesions. Lesions can still occur in tissues secondarily to all these medical conditions. Cancer mutations are abnormal changes or damage to cells, but as they're no longer strictly viewed as part of the original tissue, these aren't lesions. As inherited disease-causing genes aren't specific events of abnormal change or damage at all, these aren't lesions. Any other abnormal change or damage to DNA, is a lesion (see molecular lesion).

Lesions are not per the article secondary effects of damage, or required to be visible - though 'invisible' lesions would be odd for diagnostic purposes, and so aren't commonly considered. Select conditions might possibly be called lesions by common convention, despite going against technicality. Gewath (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

History

The "History" section of this page is so confusing and badly written that I propose that it should be removed entirely. It makes no sense! Katiekillick (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Young trotsky (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)