Talk:Adipsia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 2974hurtadm, Sarapardej, Moosejammies.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Well Written: The article is very well written and gives useful information. There are a couple of awkward sentences that can be fixed with a quick read through. I agree with the review below, that hypodipsia does not have a wikipedia page linked to it. You can always find a good website/article that you can link to though, instead of a wikipedia page.

2. Verifiable with no original research: I reviewed the article "Adipsia Workup: Laboratory Studies, Imaging Studies, Other Tests". The information used from the cited article seems to be accurate. I would recommend using more information from it because it has a lot of information. The only thing is that it is not an actual article, but instead is an information page on the Medscape website. Also the "A Case of Adipsic Hypernatremia Associated with Anomalous Corpus Callosum in Adult with Mental Retardation" is a Korean article. If you used just the abstract that's fine, but otherwise how did you read the actual article?

3. Broad in Coverage: The group did not leave a message on the talk page, so as far as I know, they found all of the information they could and did not have difficulty in finding that information. If this is not all of the information, I would recommend trying to do a little more research on the topic because the article seems to be a bit short. If further information cannot be found, you could always find information on the background information to help explain some of the basics a bit more.

4. Neutral: The authors did a great job in not including any biased statements in the article. Sources seem to be secondary sources.

5. Illustrated: Great choices of images! While I was reading through the article, I noticed some information that would be useful to have an image to better understand the information, and these images were included in the article. Great job!

Overall, I thought the article provided useful information in a way that was easy to understand. I would recommend adding a link to the relationship with hypothalamus section. There is currently no link in this section. I would also add a reference to this section, as well as to Type A, B, and C sections. I think it would be useful to link to ADH or osmolality since these are mentioned multiple times in the article. I would recommend reading through it and fixing any awkward sentences and grammatical mistakes. Overall, great job! Emnett1031 (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Well Written: The topic is well written and all the major content about adipsia appears to be within your page. The only thing is that the introduction or first paragraph is choppy and confusing. A lot of information is thrown at the reader without much introduction or explanation. Also, hypodipsia should not be linked because it has no page to be linked to. Otherwise, the page and content were explained and written well.

2. Verifiable with no original research: There are 13 sources that are appropriate and able to be used. I reviewed the article, “Dopamine-Deficient Mice Are Severely Hypoactive, Adipsic, and Aphagic” by Qun-Yong Zhou and Richard D. Palmiter. The way the article is cited appears to be correct. The only thing I would recommend is pulling more information from this article and adding it to the Relationship with Dopamine section. You included the main point of the article in the appropriate section, but the section still seems random since there is no apparent connection to your topic. I would make more of a connection with dopamine to adipsia through the use of this article.

3. Broad in Coverage: There was no goal left on the talk page so I was unsure what your page was targeting to do. The page is informative given that there is not much information on the rare disease. I would just include more information about dopamine’s connection to adipsia.

4. Neutral: There is no bias in the article.

5. Illustrated: No images are present, but I believe that images could be introduced into the page. A picture of the hypothalamus relating to its thirst centers could be included. A picture of showing what areas in the brain are affected in adipsia would give the reader a better understanding of the brain interactions. Another option could be adding in different photos of the different types of adipsia, which would help the reader distinguish between the different types (if they are available).

Overall, I think this article is informative and well written given the limited amount of information on the topic. One thing I would suggest is adding the connection between dopamine and adipsia because that section currently appears random in relation to the topic. I would make sure that your sources are integrated properly throughout your article. From the one article I read, it seems that you did this. I would also suggest fixing the introduction paragraph because it is choppy and rather confusing. Also, adding pictures into the page will engage the reader and help the reader understand more about the topic. But otherwise great job! Kclarke11 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I thought that this article contained a lot of relevant information that helped give a clear picture of this disorder. I would like to see some illustrations added, such as an image of the brain and where the hypothalamus is located, that would make it easier to understand this concept. I also thought that the section on dopamine could be expanded to include how it is relevant to adipsia. You stated that dopamine has been shown to be involved with feeding behavior, but do people with adipsia have lower levels of dopamine then or is that just a separate fact? Try to make it clearer how dopamine is related to adipsia. 7078kassels (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I thought that this article was well done, considering it is a very rare disease and there is a not a lot of information circulating about this disease. In particular, I thought that the relationhip with dopamine and the testing sections were crucial in understanding Adipsia in terms of changing and modifying certain causes of the disease to see what would occur. Images would be one thing that this article would greatly benefit from. Specifically, a cartoon diagram of the hypothalamus and possibly a histological view of the hypothalamus in a normal person or from an adipsia patient (if you can find it) that differentiates the different areas. Most importantly, it should show the anterior part of the hypothalamus, so that readers can understand what part of the brain and/or what is physically causing adipsia. I think potential causes need to be explained more, as they are limited to "trauma, genetics, and tumors" in the introductory section (excluding the dopamine section). What I mean is that you should create a new section called Causes/Potential Causes and discuss what past studies/cases have shown and what specific biochemical and more importantly, genetic inheritance pathways produce adipsia.

Mmaggay (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)mmaggay

Primary Review

1.Well written: Overall, the page and content is explained and written fairly well. It seems that the article contains the major content about adipsia within the page and complies with the manual of style guidelines. However, the introduction is very choppy and confusing. There is a lot of information introduced to the reader without any kind of introductory connection to adipsia or thorough explanation about its relationship to make it apparent to the reader why the information is being included in the introduction. It skips from talking about adipsia, to talking about Diabetes Insipidus, to why adipsia is rare, back to its association with Diabetes Insipidus. I would recommend providing more organization and structure to the introduction by sorting through the information present in the introduction and formulating a first paragraph that focuses solely on what adipsia is, its rarity, etc. and then have a lead in sentence and second paragraph that explains how it is related to Diabetes insipidus and then include the information that focuses on why this connection is important. The section about Diabetes insipidus could also be included as its own subcategory if seen fit. I would also recommend unlinking hypodipsia, as it does not have a page to be linked to. “Medical” is spelt wrong in the management section.

2.Verifiable with no original research: The article seems to contain no original research or plagiarism. It contains a list of 13 different references that are appropriately cited throughout the article. I reviewed the article “Adipsia Treatment and Management” by Vikas R Dharnidharka. It qualifies as a secondary source and the authors correctly presented the information present in the source. However, it is not correctly cited in the article. The title of the article is “Adipsia Treatment and Management” not just “Adipsia Treatment” as the editors have it cited. In the references section it does not include a full citation. I would recommend creating a full citation for this source with the author and year of publication, for example, included. You could also use this source to add information about the treatment methods used in treating adipsia if behavioral therapy does not work, such as the insertion of a G-tube to inject fluids.

3.Broad in coverage: There was no statement of the goal of the page left on the talk page, so I am not certain about the aim of the paper. However, as mentioned in the introduction, adipsia is an extremely rare disease and therefore has lacked the ability to be thoroughly researched. Given this lack of understanding and research about the disease, I would speculate that the goal would be to cover all relevant aspects. It appears that the page addresses the major aspects known about the topic. I would recommend adding a little more explanation as to how electroconvulsive therapy can help treat the disease. The relationship with dopamine section appears to focus more on how dopamine is related to hunger than thirst. I would recommend adding more information about its connection with thirst and adipsia instead of hunger.

4.Neutral: The article presents a neutral view point on the topic of adipsia. It is informational without including any editor bias.

5.Illustrated: The page does not contain any images. I think introducing a few images into the page could help the reader to better understand how the processes and brain structures that are discussed on the page interact. For example, a picture of the negative feedback loop that regulates thirst may be included. Another picture that may be included to demonstrate how adipsia affects the different portions of the brain (if available) is an image, such as from a PET scan, of the brain of a person who has lost their sense of thirst.

Overall the article has a great and informative start. I think there is room to add a few improvements that could really enhance the quality of the page. For example, working on organizing and connecting the introduction paragraph could help add clarity to what exactly adipsia is and its association with the neural system. Furthermore, pictures could help to enhance the reader’s understanding of the different processes and regulations explained by the text. Don’t forget to double check all of your sources citations and validity. Good job so far! Dassowsd (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Nice work!- It looked like the authors did a lot of work researching because it was a very thorough article with an extensive amount of information in various topics. Perhaps a picture could be added just to give readers a visual. I also think it would help if the authors defined or clarified some of the terms, especially in the introduction. There is just a lot of (valuable) information packed in the first paragraph it left me a little overwhelmed. I also had to keep rereading some parts to help me make sense of all the information. I think adding some definitions or more transitions will help slow it down for readers, especially ordinary readers who are not familiar with physiology. 9260konetzf (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I thought this article was well written and well organized, and was pretty easy to follow. I also liked the use of the images for dopamine and the hypothalamus. In general I felt that someone who was unfamiliar with science could get a good understanding of the topic. With that said I felt that links could be added in the relationship to dopamine and relationship to hypothalamus sections. Overall I thought the authors did a good job! Emmasarah95 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review by Jxl579

Overall, I thought the article was well-written and well organized. Like the other reviewers, who have suggested more images in the sections about dopamine and the hypothalamus, it would be nice to add more hyperlinks to some of the drugs (i.e vasopressin) and other terms (i.e osmoreceptors). For someone who is not too familiar with these terms, it would make it easier for them to click on the link to learn more about that particular drug. Maybe for the section regarding its relationship to dopamine, it seems rather broad so adding more direct relationships between adipsia and dopamine would strengthen it a lot. Jxl579 (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review

I thought this article was well written in a sense that it was easy to comprehend for some one without a scientific background. However, there are few minor details that I think can be addressed along the lines of adding hyperlinks to certain terms or even add some pictures that would assist in better understanding the material. I feel that the section on Dopamine could be revised in order to better explain the purpose of it and how it plays a critical role in Adipsia. Other than that I feel this article is clean and concise. Good job. SSCHMIDT1127 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review by KClarke11

Thanks for the review, your input is going to help us a lot. We understand that the introduction paragraph is confusing that was handed down to us but we will make grammatical improvements to it. We will also try to elaborate on the information that is in that paragraph, and un-link hypodipsia. I think that we will definitely be adding more hyperlinks to give readers more background information on the topic. I will also gladly pull more information from “Dopamine-Deficient Mice Are Severely Hypoactive, Adipsic, and Aphagic” in order to expand upon our explanation of the role of dopamine. Along with trying to explain the role of dopamine to adipsia as it was indicated that this part was confusing. We will also see if we should still leave a goal of our article on the talk page, I will verify that with Dr. Mynlieff, but to respond to the comment, there is not a lot of research or secondary articles on this topic. Also, more images will be added to the article to further explain the topics. 2974hurtadm (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review by Dassowsd

Thank you for your thorough review of our page. Our apologies for not leaving a statement of goal, but you are right in your assumption that due to the lack of research, we are aiming to discuss the major relevant aspects of the disease. The introduction is, for the most part, what was originally on the page, so we will absolutely work on that to add more organization and structure as well as experiment with separating it into the two paragraphs you described. How embarrassing that hypodipsia doesn’t have a page… Will be unlinking that and will fix the citation of the “Adipsia Treatment and Management” article. Taking your image suggestions into consideration, we are working on finding the most helpful, understandable illustrations of the disease pathway and affected brain areas. We will also work on expanding the explanation of how electroconvulsive therapy helps as a treatment and add more information about the relationship between adipsia and dopamine. Thanks again for your insight and suggestions. Moosejammies (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Emnett1031

Thank you for looking so closely at our Wikipedia page. We really did not make any changes to the introduction that was originally on the page, so we appreciate you noticing the awkwardness and broken links. Per your recommendation, we will look back at “Adipsia Workup: Laboratory Studies, Imaging Studies, Other Tests” and pull more information from the article for our website. As for the Korean article, we did use the abstract because it had relevant information that we had a hard time finding anywhere else. Sorry we did not leave a message on the talk page, but essentially our topic is quite under-researched, as it is a very rare condition. We will definitely do more background research for the basics, as you described. Thank you for your feedback on the images, even though you said you were content with what we had, we are going to try to add an image with the thirst pathway in the brain. We will add more hyperlinks throughout our article. Again, thank you for all of your suggestions, they were very helpful. Sarapardej (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Purpose of Marquette BIOL 3501 Edits on the Adipsia Wikipedia Page

Adipsia is a disease of the brain that is not extensively studied. Our goal in the edits and additions are meant to improve this Wikipedia page, as it was severely lacking information. Our goal is to find current secondary literature that expands upon this topic. With that said, there is not a lot of secondary literature available on this topic. So, our group intends to use what is available, including some relevant primary sources, to expand this page and information on this topic. Note to our class instructor: Our group forgot to add this section before reviews were made and was added after reviews were due, nonetheless we think it is necessary to include it in the Talk Page of Adipsia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2974hurtadm (talk • contribs) 01:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

essential hypernatremia can be corrected by carbamazepine, clofibrate, clorpropamide

there is evidence, that essential hypernatremia presenting with normal volume correction however impaired osmofunction due to reduced secretion of ADH can be treated by chlorpropamide, carbamazepine, clorfibrate . Blood-volume stability and serum osmolality are regulated by arginine-vasopressin. Administration of said medications to patients with symptoms of essential hypernatremia corrected serum osmolality and hypernatremia

<ref>DeRubertis, F.R., Michelis, M.F., Beck, N., Field, J.B., Davos, B.B., 1971, „Essential“ hypernatremia due to ineffective osmotic and intact volume regulation of vasopressin secretion. J. Clin. Invest., 50: 97-111 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5101300/

<ref>TOKIHISA KIMURA, KUNIAKI MATSUI, KOZO OTA, KAORU YOSHINAGA Hypothalamic Hypernatremia Due to Volume-Dependent ADH Release, and Its Treatment with Carbamazepine and Clofibrate The Tohoku Journal of Experime ... Volume 127 (1979) Issue 2 https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjem1920/127/2/127_2_101/_article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertley1 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)