Talk:Proteus syndrome

Article categorization

This article was initially categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM:CAT. kilbad (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

what is most of the signs of protues syndrome?

The claim that people with Proteus syndrome are of above average intelligence seems to be PC and not NPV. Can anyone back this up?

Read it again. It says that most people (not all) are of average or above average intelligence. In other words, people with Proteus mirror the general population.

Reworded to be more neutral. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

only 200 recorded cases, and 120 are alive today? does that really seem that likely? that this rare disorder has just recently sprung up to almost double the number of cases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.177.16.242 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article seems to be contradictory in that it says that "Some affected individuals may suffer from learning disabilities as a result of these growths" and in the next paragraph, "The disorder has no documented effect on cognitive ability." If the growths are the result of the disorder, then it would seem that the first sentence indicates that the disorder does have an effect on cognitive ability. Can anyone explain this? Splat 02:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have mentioned to another user that asked a similar question, it is not contradictory, just a little confusing in the way it is structured. Proteus syndrome growths may cause learning disabilities, but this is a possible secondary effect to the presence of the growths, it is not a primary effect of the disease itself, unlike other syndromes (Trisomy 21) where diminished cognitive ability is an expected primary effect of the disease itself. This may seem like picking nits, but it is an important aspect of making a differential diagosis. You can't have physicians basing their diagnosis on the presence or absence of a loss of cognitive ability.UnseemlyWeasel 13:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to show sources for both claims and explain it further on the article page, place both claimed statements in the same paragraph so it's more coherent. For now i'm tagging it with contradictory. --Witchinghour 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have revised the section in question and hope I have captured the intended points of both previous contributors. The section is no longer contradictary so I have removed the tag. Shinji nishizono 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

superfluous?

"...was lately diagnosed as having a particularly severe case of Proteus syndrome rather than, or in addition to, the neurofibromatosis (NF) that doctors once thought he had.[1] It may be true that Joseph Merrick had both Proteus Syndrome and neurofibromatosis."

"rather than, or in addition to" seems enough. No need to say he may have had both.

Well, edit it then!Snipergirl 13:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done 200.55.105.6 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The article on Joseph Merrick reads: "During 2003, DNA tests conducted by Dr. Charis Eng on samples of Merrick's hair and bone showed no mutation in the PTEN gene (only present in some Proteus syndrome sufferers). Hence, there is as of yet, no physical evidence to support the theory that Merrick suffered from Proteus syndrome."

However this article reads: "This extremely rare condition would have remained obscure, were it not for the fact that Joseph Merrick — immortalized as the "Elephant Man" for a look imparted by his large facial tumours and the grayish hue of his overgrown skin — was lately diagnosed as having a particularly severe case of Proteus syndrome rather than, or in addition to, the neurofibromatosis that doctors once thought he had." This cites "The Proteus syndrome: the Elephant Man diagnosed", 1986.

Perhaps recent data has changed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.236.158 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

US/UK Localization

Noticed that a heading uses "Orthopaedic" (UK) instead of "Orthopedic" (US) while the paragraph then uses "localize" (US) instead of "localise" (UK). It's a minor nitpick but I'm not sure of localization standards since both are en. Maybe someone familiar with language standards can fix the inconstancy, if it's even an issue.