Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Add topic
Active discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Edit with VisualEditor

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

Update all pages to the new version of the 'Terminologia Anatomica' (TA2-2019)Edit

Good evening,

The 'Terminologia Anatomica' has been re-edited in 2019 (https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/) and is much more logical than the first edition (https://taviewer.openanatomy.org/).

Since one year, I work full time to create an open source 3D atlas of anatomy (https://www.z-anatomy.com/) which includes this list of anatomical structures in several languages.

English and Latin are default, I translated the whole list in french (using the TA1 and adapting it) and the Portuguese version has also been corrected.

For this atlas, I adapt, copy-paste and create a definition for each of these anatomical structures (I have about 2700 on 7200) Most of them are the actual Wikipedia page, but the name has been adapted to the new nomenclature.

In order to be up-to-date, Wikipedia could take advantage of this work and adapt all these pages.

We are talking about >2500 pages and more will come (>7000).

Most of the sources are Wikipedia itself.

There are very few new anatomical terms, but many existing anatomical terms have a new name.

Many anatomical terms did not have their own page on Wikipedia.

The definitions created are copy-pasted parts of another wikipedia page (of the parent structure).

The other descriptions created are translations made from the 'Feneis' -which is the first reference for french anatomists- and contain the reference used in this book (page+number).

If you have any idea about how to update these pages (the atlas already takes all of my time), it is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodicpinpon (talkcontribs) 21:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Tom (LT), Bibeyjj, Ornithopsis, GBFEE, anyone else: What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing! As far as I see it, there are 2 queries raised here
  • The first query is article naming convention, and how changes to TA affect current Wikipedia articles. It is worth noting that most Wikipedia articles do match the term given by TA, but that they don't have to (as described by WP:MEDTITLE). It may be worth checking whether the TA list linked at WP:MEDMOS is still up to date - we could also put a link to the new list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy#Tools. This is ongoing work.
  • The second query is about whether some anatomy Wikipedia articles still need to be made. This points to general article improvement, as many anatomical structures do not have an article because they lack notability, or because no one has yet collected enough reliable sources to prove notability. There is not much action that needs to be taken regarding this unless there is a secret legion of editors we can unleash on increasing the number of anatomy articles! I imagine that most articles that do not exist are redirects to other pages, although I have no evidence of this.
I will link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. All the best! Bibeyjj (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I basically agree with what Bibeyjj says. We already provide TA2 identifiers in infoboxes if Wikidata is up to date (see e.g. Stapes). Your work on this atlas is fantastic and adds to existing anatomical ontologies that already exist. I would be wary of batch creating hundreds to thousands of stub articles in this sphere if they're just a dictionary definition particularly if you haven't had time to familiarise yourself with our existing articles. Usually the content can be found on bigger articles and the thousands of new articles just creates more work for editors to organise them, de duplicate them, merge and so forth down the track without meaningfully assisting readers. Perhaps at WP:ANAT you could post some lists of what articles you think are missing and you can get some extra hands and eyes to look through them to work out which need redirecting, additions to bigger articles, or creating.Tom (LT) (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not altogether sure what I was tagged for. My interest in anatomy is from the standpoint of paleontology, and I am of the opinion that we should separate human and non-human anatomy into separate pages when possible (e.g. create a new page titled Vertebrate maxilla and re-focus Maxilla to be specifically about the structure in humans, or conversely re-structure Maxilla to be less human-centric and create a new page Maxilla in human anatomy). If this were done, I would have no stake in what is done on human anatomy pages, and even as is, I only have a stake in those articles of paleontological interest. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT), Bibeyjj, and WhatamIdoing,
These are my very first steps posting and editing on wikipedia.
Two informations:
1)The University of Leiden (Holland) received about 100 000 euros (approximation) to continue developing the open source atlas of anatomy and I do not know at all how they will spend this money; I hope to get hired
https://www.surf.nl/nieuws/13-nieuwe-projecten-voor-open-en-online-onderwijs-gehonoreerd
https://www.surf.nl/open-anatomisch-3d-model-in-het-onderwijs
It may be the moment to try and put some people translating the TA2 and adapting the wikipedia pages of the anatomical structures.
2)If somebody has the time and skills to create a short python script to export the .txt files of all the definitions contained in the atlas (in Blender), they could then be used to create/rename the wikipedia pages of these anatomical structures.
I try to create bridges to coordinate my efforts with the contributors of wikipedia but, as I give all my time to the 3D atlas of anatomy (it is enough challenge for one man), I do not plan to integrate the content myself in wikipedia. I'd rather try and find a method to propose what I do to the contributors, and let them decide if they want to integrate it or not. Melodicpinpon (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Good luck with your job prospects. You might also want to talk to the Wikidata folks, as importing structured data is their specialty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

CDC or academic peer-reviewed journalsEdit

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic a consensus was reached (now archived) that we should improve the article by adding formally peer reviewed and cited academic journals in place of what CDC published. Now we have a new editor who seeks to reverse that position. We would be interested in your guidance. Dan88888 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't involved but any decision to cite journal sources "in place of" the CDC seems weird. Why not both? Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Some editors (not me) were concerned that CDC was biased, given the controvery around the topic.Dan88888 (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Sounds covidiotic. But in any event putting "According to the CDC ..." or "The CDC says ..." would sidestep that, as their position is certainly due, at least in respect of the US. Alexbrn (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I cannot find the archived discussion but I would lean towards sharing with additional information that this is the CDCs viewpoint as Alexbrn suggests rather than omitting. JenOttawa (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Discussion can be found at Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic#Danish study, and the edits in question are here. There are two interrelated concerns, and I would consider the discussion of how to handle the CDC source to be less pressing since it's in broad agreement with our highest quality peer reviewed meta-analysis (so we're not having to disentangle conflicting interpretations of the primary literature).
The actual editing conflict on the article is about whether we should directly cite the primary studies used in the meta-analysis, and if so how the article should be worded (are the primary study findings wikivoiced, or not). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Right. A good review article would be a lovely thing to cite either instead of or in addition to the US CDC (or similarly large and reputable health agencies). But my favorite clinical trial is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
... especially when it's an underpowered trial that has become a rallying-point for anti-mask campaigners. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Well it's nice that Talic includes Bungaard in her meta-analysis, thereby *strengthening* the overall conclusion.
I thought more about CDC. I have no problem at all when CDC is the secondary source for peer reviewed journals. Where I am less convinced is where CDC is a secondary source for its own research (which itself is not subject to formal peer review). It seems to me what we have in that case is closer in quality to a peer reviewed primary source than a true secondary source. Dan88888 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Some quick thoughts on this (partly for myself)
Guidelines and research are distinct. You are correct that guidelines often lack peer review, Wikipedia nevertheless consider them reasonable sources (though often inferior to systematic reviews).
People working for institutions citing their own research in a secondary source is a potential issue. You can get similar issues with cliques of academics as citing one another, or funding bodies tweaking what gets researched. Nevertheless, different papers with different authors and different aims still provides some protection even if they work for the same institution. I imagine similar things like this have been considered in the context of pharmaceutical funding and bias in papers.
There is a saying (which I don't entirely agree with - but has real effects) that Hard cases make bad law. Policies are designed for Wikipedia as a whole rather than the facts of a particular decision. One can hope that with time additional research will get done and sourcse can improve.
COVID is doing some nasty things to society and institutions, Wikipedia has the choice to bend to the effects of COVID or see if it can weather the storm. Talpedia (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not just COVID. I've been reading https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/ by Jonathan Haidt, and he lays out a pretty compelling argument that when your business model is based on getting people to click on things/stick around long enough to view more advertisements, the end result is that you amplify "engaging" content, which just accidentally happens to be outrage-producing, society-dividing content.
I have never felt happier that I never joined Facebook or any of the other social media things. Once you are in one of those systems, it will send you content that keeps you clicking, no matter what that does to you and no matter whether the content is true. If you click on "Those horrible people are trying to take away your rights by making you wear a mask sometimes", it will fill your life with that content, to the exclusion of any other perspective. If you instead click on "Those horrible people are trying to kill your disabled child by breathing germs all over him", it will fill your life with that content, to the exclusion of any other perspective. Content that takes a middle ground, like saying "There are advantages and disadvantages. Having other people wear masks is difficult for my family member because he's hard of hearing, but having everyone wear a mask is important for my other family member, who has COPD. We're trying to balance everyone's needs, but no matter what we choose, some people will be helped and other people will be hurt", doesn't get amplified. When we take that algorithm-driven tendency to extremism, and add the all-too-human tendency towards tribalism, which means outraged people in your tribe will punish you for not just for expressing a different view but also for efforts to put things in perspective, then we end up with a mess.
Given that situation, is it any wonder that multiple editors turn up here, thinking that they already know The Truth™ about whatever medicine-related subject is buzzing around social media, only The Truth™ each editor received doesn't match The Truth™ that the next editor received?
Haidt refers to James Madison, which was an unlooked-for delight, because I've been proofreading s:Index:The Federalist (1818).djvu at WIkisource recently, but I recently looked up a paragraph by E. B. White, published 12 October 1935 in The New Yorker. Here it is:

"Statesmen and historians have long known that a common enemy is the most solidifying thing a nation can have, welding all the people into a happy, united mass. We saw how true that was in our own home last week when we discovered that the place we had moved into had cockroaches, or, as the cook calls them, cackaroachies. We discovered them late one night when we went down into the pantry and snapped on a light; since then, the household has warred against them with a high feeling of family unity and solidarity, sniping at them with a Flit gun, rubbing poisonous paste on bits of potatoes for them to eat, the house full of great singleness of purpose and accord. No wonder a dictator, when he feels uneasy, looks around for something for his people to squash."

Because of this environment in which everyone is united with their tribe in outrage, I think that when editors believe that they have already done so much "research" by reading the stories about medical research that others have posted on social media, watching YouTube videos, blogs that match your POV, etc., and that they already know The Truth™ about any contentious issue, one of the best things we can do is to start searching from the beginning, as if we didn't already know The Truth™. I particularly recommend that editors start at PubMed, which doesn't try to funnel you in a particular direction based on which subjects you keep you engaged/outraged. It helps you find a fuller picture of what's actually being said in the scientific journals. And if you feel like your purpose here at Wikipedia is to squash something that outrages your people – well, maybe you should think about that for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
well said--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I think these effects are definitely real. I find one of the nice things about Wikipedia (as compared to other fora) is that focusing on research and systematic reviews force you to engage with the literature (often quite broadly). This (now aging) video by CGP Gray echoes these ideas in an easy to digest form (though more from a biological / mathematical angle than a sociological one). [1]
I do have some faith in the ability of individuals within the social media space to learn, find nuance, find better sources; and for social media as a whole to learn to be a better system. People do find outrage boring after enough time and learn nuance, but perhaps there are enough people passing through the "outrage phase" of their lives (hopefully to be followed by an enlightened phase rather than a phase in a political cult) for this to be a problem.
I think it can also be hard to work out the degree to which outrage is serving a purpose for the individual (something they need to solve or understand, experiences they want to relive to overcome) rather than an individual being lead astray by outrage. It is unfortunate that certain important truths about the world are more readily available in politicized forms than the sanitized versions that show up in general schooling.
One effect I am quite aware of is that of "narrative" and "theories about why people think certain things" that can give you certainty where there is little and make it easy to dismiss other theories. Such theories need to be treated with care: it's not so much that I don't think that they are *true* some of the time, but more that they can be difficult to falsify at times, too applicable and subtle. I sometimes wonder if the narratives that hold people can be a stepping stone to a more general narrative. So "distrust in institution X" could instead be better replaced with distrust in all institutions (and a concern about how truth is even possible).
I wonder what the correspondence is between narratives (e.g. liberalism, anarchism, conservatism) and tribes and which of these are more causal to social processes.
I have to admit my aim at times is to make contentious distinctions as clear, sharp and free of assumption as possible. This is perhaps a more acceptable form of the desire to squash ideas which you disagree. One nice idea that I got out of watching too many Haidt videos on Youtube was that of having norms and rules in an institution such that regardless of motivations the institution still produces the outcome that it desired (and perhaps results in learning in the individual) Talpedia (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No simufilam articleEdit

This drug, while a relatively new and not-yet-approved treatment for the protein misfolding of Alzheimer's Disease, has been in the news for a while. Odd that nobody has taken on an article. Whether it works or not is immaterial. It appears to qualify as a subject of interest to Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Quisqualis, would you like to create an article at simufilam? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I would very much like to, but have no time nor energy to take on the endeavor.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ah, that feeling when you come back only the next day, ready to roll up your sleeves, and you find that the WP:MED crowd have already done it! Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Quisqualis, it looks like four editors have pitched in to start the article. Thanks for suggesting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
    This is most gratifying. It shouldn't prove terribly challenging, but thanks to all involved for the outpouring of energy and interest!--Quisqualis (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Some eyes on Simufilam would be welcome because of repeated IP edits that look very POVy to me. However, I don't have access to the relevant journals, and also quite frankly not the time to handle this. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Phenol sulfur transferase deficiencyEdit

I came upon an orphan article, started in 2020, called Phenol sulfur transferase deficiency, which was allegedly identified by Rosemary Waring. It is a purported cause of Autism, and promoted papers by antivaccine activists and dubious autism treatments through diet and epsom salt baths. Can anyone help separate facts from unproven claims? ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS vs biomed research: citing of primary sources on medical topic pages.Edit

I would like to suggest that on many medical topic pages where statements supported with primary sources need to be removed (if suitable secondary sources cannot be identified) we could generate sister pages that concern the research area instead of the medical topic. This would include an disambiguation statement at the top of the page along the lines of: This page concerns the scientific research topic meningitis research for the medical topic see:meningitis. That's is very clunky but give the idea.

Simon A Johnston (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Many "medical" articles already include a Research section and for research to be due it generally needs to covered by secondary sources. If we Wikipedia editors start picking and choosing which "research" to include that would be a species of OR and at odds with the goal of encyclopedia which aims to summarize accepted knowledge about topics: as a tertiary source, why should Wikipedia pay attention to primary texts that have garnered no attention in secondary sources? Alexbrn (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Completely agree with this but most articles don't include a research section and if they do there are lots of 'research' statements that are outside of the research section. I'm coming from the direction of wikipedia already separating medical topics from a point of view of editing but this not being very clear from as a reader. Would I be right in thinking that your suggestion would be that the solution is better editing of medical topic articles? Simon A Johnston (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
You should probably look to a Governement or Supranational authority as a possible secondary source for the research. For example, https://www.who.int/initiatives/defeating-meningitis-by-2030 has a lot of content that might be relevant.Dan88888 (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Government or Supranational authority is vital for references of medical topics but I am not sure where this fits for discussing current research. As @Alexbrn says having primary research on Wikipedia doesn't fit with the aim to summarise accepted knowledge. In the example you have linked this about policy rather than research. Simon A Johnston (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Because research by its nature is generally preliminary, in an encyclopedic content the most one can usually say is "X is being investigated for ..." or "A large trial is being run to determine if ..." or "lab research has suggest it might be worth pursuing Y line of research ..." or somesuch – if some secondary source(s) exists to verify that. Alexbrn (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
It has a whole section on research priorities and lots of other mentions on research. I don't know what research you want to talk about. I just thought it might be there.Dan88888 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Articles about future research priorities, from a large medical organization or a major agency can be useful. The most informative statements say something like "we have done enough research on ____ and we need more research on _____". Compare what you hear in statements like "Government Health Funder identified epidemiology as a research priority" vs "Government Health Funder identified translational research as a research priority". The first says we don't even know who gets this yet, and the second says we think we know the cause and are ready for treatment breakthroughs. Statements about research that is currently/recently prioritized are also helpful; for example, two decades ago, the research in myasthenia gravis was pretty much only epidemiology, with nobody researching causes, improved treatments, or potential cures. Statements about research that shouldn't be done any longer (e.g., any more research about whether the MMR vaccines cause autism; we already know the answer, thanks) are incredibly important.
OTOH, a generic Further research is needed statement or a "please fund more of the exact thing my lab is researching" plea at the end of a typical paper is not really useful. If that was the best source I could find on the subject, I'd probably leave out the section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Experience shows that keeping such fast-moving subjects up to date is normally beyond the capacity of our small group of medical editors. That's apart from the extreme difficulty of writing a neutral article with right balance in the first place. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm concerned that statements supported with primary sources need to be removed (if suitable secondary sources cannot be identified) may have gotten WP:MEDPRI a little backwards. The root issue is that primary sources are less trustworthy than secondary sources, full stop. With medical information, we take extra care because primary sources so often give results which are not-replicated, and/or their results are misintepreted. There are exceptional situations where primary studies can be used, but a separate article title doesn't resolve any of them. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm new and still learning. Simon A Johnston (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Radiation_hormesis#Effects_of_cobalt-60_exposureEdit

Much of this section relies on a discredited study published in the nonsense Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. If someone could take a hacksaw and bring this in line with WP:DUE, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The situation was mentioned in a couple of recent textbooks. I've added them to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiley journals now available at TWLEdit

See WP:VPM#New Wikipedia Library Collections Available Now - April 2022 for the new collections that are now available via The Wikipedia Library. I suspect the Wiley journal collection will be of particular interest to WikiProject Medicine. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks very much for the update! Facts707 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Some medical articles with suspect licensing historyEdit

I'd like to draw the attention of editors here to Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard#20 some odd old substed versions of Ticket confirmation where there are a half-dozen medical articles of interest. Izno (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

seems to have been archived[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I've de-archived it and put a pin in it for a few weeks. Izno (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This was sent to more than a thousand pages, so I think we can confidently expect an uptick in mindless removal of reliable-for-this-specific-statement sources, despite Headbomb's ongoing (and, in this case, bold-faced) efforts to discourage that. Ask for help when you need it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
So far, in the two or so years the script's been around, I know of exactly one person (Zefr) that mindlessly uses the script. So while it's always a good idea to keep an eye out for mindless removals, those are still very uncommon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't get your hostility, Headbomb. I didn't know the script existed, and don't make "mindless" edits. I use CITEWATCH for the useful disclaimer about predatory practices, and the search function to identify journals needing caution about weak editorial purview and article content. It just happens to be the case that journals listed on CITEWATCH for topics I edit often publish dubious articles - which I do read before editing or reverting, so my behavior is compliant with editorial scrutiny. In such a case when I do revert, it is the original editor's responsibility for a better source per WP:BURDEN. Zefr (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Because this has been explained many times to you, with little to no effect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any history of "many times" or of "little to no effect" due to some explanation from you. Take a cold shower and stick to the project without baseless accusations. Zefr (talk)
BURDEN is a little more nuanced than that (don't forget to read the footnotes). Generally, editors are only required to provide one (1) source that they genuinely believe is reliable for that statement. Limiting it to one source prevents a lot of POV pushing ("Sure, you gave me sources from the Pope, the Queen of England, and Albert Einstein to support this statement, but I reject them all as being completely unreliable. Bring me another rock, sucker.") Perhaps you are thinking of WP:ONUS? That's the one that says content can be removed unless and until there is a consensus to include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
It takes some new users a few rounds to start understanding that when the script highlights things, that is not the same as a demand that the source definitely be removed on sight. Most people will get the hang of it after a bit, and others won't keep using it (it's just not everyone's cup of tea, which is fine), but my point is that there is a learning curve. If you feel like you are encountering one of those situations, no matter which "side" you are on, ask for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Question: What about making deprecation highlighting opt-in using a class, instead of automatically for everybody? Instead of highlighting for all users using the {{highlight}} template, this would make it opt-in:
  • <span class="unreliable-source">[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]</span>
along with a suggested common.css adjustment to produce the highlighting:
  • .unreliable-source {background-color:pink}
And then whoever wants unreliable source highlighting, gets it? (And also lets them choose their background color or other text decoration if color-blindness or other accessibility issues are present.) This would make it more similar to orange disambig link highlighting. This comment contains such opt-in highlighting, but you can't see it now; make the change to common.css and it will become visible. Mathglot (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
It's already opt-in. Not sure what a class would add. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something: I thought a user who chooses to use this script, will cause an unreliable source on a page visited by the script to be highlighted for all users, everywhere on the internet; or am I mistaken? If that's what it does, that is not opt-in. Opt-in means, I don't see any change, unless I take a positive action first. What the class would add, is precisely that: no change to previous highlighting behavior, *even* if someone runs the script, unless I do something to my common.css. "Opt-in" means, "I get to decide if page highlighting changes after the script has been run on pages I view, not the script runner." There's also the opt-out option, but I'd be opposed to it. Mathglot (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Users scripts are personal things. What you install affects you and you alone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. In that case, I'm neutral. Mathglot (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Try it, see for yourself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The script basically highlights sources that come from weak publishers. Think "anything published by MDPI" – and then keep in mind that many (but definitely not all) MDPI journals are good sources. Scopus lists more than 100 of MDPI's journals in the top half of their academic fields. Even journals in the below-median-but-not-horrible range may contain individual articles that editors can use appropriately, just like top-tier journals normally contain sources that editors shouldn't ever cite.
The point of the script is to show you, the individually opted-in editor, which sources might need further manual review. If you find a source that shouldn't be used, then you should consider replacing it or tagging it with {{better source}}. That's the step that other people will be able to see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
"basically highlights sources that come from weak publishers" it does, but it highlights more than just weak/borderline publishers. It'll pick up blogs, quack journals, predatory journals, disinformation, misinformation, facebook, blacklisted sites, deprecated sources, and a whole lot more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully there won't be too many social media posts in medical articles. Some of them will be very obviously unreliable. It will also not pick up everything that shouldn't be cited (e.g., sources being misused, primary sources in respected journals). I do encourage anyone interested to try it out. Even if you decide that it's not for you, you will likely learn something from trying it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the script! But some kind of database like Wikidata would be much better. If I find a predatory journal I'll probably need to copy the script and modify it rather than adding an entry to the database. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@D6194c-1cc: if you find a source that should be flagged by isn't, you let me know and I'll add it to the script. The script does and will do nothing with Wikidata because describing whether or not a journal is predatory is not within the remit of Wikidata. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Termination for medical reasonsEdit

The termination for medical reasons article is a real mess containing lots of editorializing and how-to information, and really not up to the standard required. I feel this is quite concerning, because this is a topic that is going to receive substantial attention because of the current U.S. abortion debate. Can anyone please take a look, and help clean this up? — The Anome (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If anything, The Anome is understating the issues with that page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The article is now much improved, thanks to many constructive edits, so I've removed the tag templates from the head of the article. However, I'm sure it could still be improved further. Thanks to all involved. — The Anome (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Template for medical articles on conditions that may require immediate treatment?Edit

Hi all, given WP articles' typically very high ranking in internet search engines, I wonder if this is the time to create a WP medical template that can be placed at the top of articles warning that the condition may require immediate or urgent attention to avoid severe complications or even death. Some suggestions are myocardial infarction, necrotizing fasciitis, acute meningitis (particularly worsening severe pain in teenagers and young adults) and airway obstruction. Basic information such as baby aspirin or half an aspirin tablet could feature prominently in Myocardial infarction, for example. I have had a colleague with partial amputations due to necrotizing fasciitis not quickly treated, a young healthy acquaintance deceased due to undiagnosed or misdiagnosed acute meningitis, etc. Template:Current election shows a typical hatnote warning box.

Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Won't happen for many reasons, including that it shades into giving medical advice, which Wikipedia does not give. Of course if it's an important aspect of a condition that prompt treatment is recommended, then this will likely be mentioned in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Maintenance templates are meant to be temporary (e.g., until the election is over, until someone adds sources, etc.), and this wouldn't be a temporary point.
Life-threatening and emergent conditions should have that mentioned in the lead. I wonder if something could also be done in the infobox (though I'm not sure what, exactly). Sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63506/ (2003 data) seem to offer systematic data for which common conditions require emergency treatment (pneumonia, followed by multiple heart and lung conditions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"Références" on and for French Neuro-oncologie articleEdit

  Courtesy link: fr:Neuro-oncologie

How to create a reference which is acceptable? Example: "Margaret Wrensch et al.: Epidemiology of primary brain tumors: Current concepts and review of the literature. In: Neuro-Oncology. Jg. 4, Nr. 4, Oktober 2002, S. 278–299." how to show it on French part.

or this from German part "Zentrales Nervensystem. In: Krebs in Deutschland. Berlin 2019, S. 114–117". Wname1 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Not sure if this is your problem, but I tend to use the visual editor, press the cite button and paste a URL, and it works most of the time. Talpedia (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Talpedia: Can you create the topic: "Margaret Wrensch et al.: Epidemiology of primary brain tumors: Current Concepts and Review of the Literature. In: Neuro-Oncology. Vol. 4, No. 4, October 2002, pp. 278-299". What is written in such a way that it is also accepted in French? Regards, Wname1 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wname1:, beyond the issue of citing sources, there is the even more important issue of providing proper author attribution for content translation that conforms to Wikipedia's licensing requirements for your translations from other Wikipedias. Please ensure that any translated content you add to English Wikipedia is properly attributed. I've explained this at your (English) talk page, here. I can also support you at French Wikipedia; please ping me from your French talk page if you need help there. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

w:fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux is also a good place to ask for help if you are having problems at the French Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Heat strokeEdit

 
Person being cooled with water spray, treatments of heat stroke

Heat stroke looks to make several unsourced medical claims and uses low quality studies. MarshallKe (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

did a couple of edits[3] (however it needs more editor help)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


Need attention to Kidney pageEdit

I've found that Kidney article describes human kidney. But my edits were revered even with started discussion on talk page. I've made the article in Russian about kidney in vertebrates and started translation to English. I'd like to publish it as Kidney page. And I need help in translation to English. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the same kind of problem that an editor mentions above in this comment. Should an article about "kidneys" be about "human kidneys" or about "verterbrate kidneys"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi D6194c-1cc. We generally follow WP:SPLIT which is, when there is sufficient content to justify a split to a separate article, the human article gets moved. However, for various reasons editors don't seem that interested in adding content about non human kidneys. As you are worried about translation, I suggest you translate into your user space and then contact us at WP:ANATOMY. Please also be careful regarding your sources; if you have used primarily outdated or non English sources this would not be ideal. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer! Since there is not so much common and specific information in open access in the internet I used background information and introductions from primary sources. I don't think that it could be a problem because I don't use information from the research itself so those primary sources become secondary but with slightly less quality. But I've found one problem. The edit filter warned me that I have a link from a predatory journal in the third paragraph of the article and I can't determine which one. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@D6194c-1cc, the user script at User:Headbomb/unreliable (includes installation instructions) would probably highlight the offending URL for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I've found the link. It's the "Evolution of the Kidney" article as I thought. That source contains some valuable information but it's like a mess. I'll try to substitute it by something else. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The page on ALLO-715 May Need Your AttentionEdit

I have initiated a deletion discussion about the drug ALLO-715, which is under clinical trial as of now. Your participation will be highly appreciated since the discussion seemingly demands for editors having expertise in medicine domain. Cirton (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Template deletion discussionEdit

... at Template:Older med refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes to articles on Factor Xa, thromboplastin, and new article on thrombokinaseEdit

I recently submitted a new article on the enzyme thrombokinase that was rejected by Robert McClenon because the word is contained in the article on thromboplastin. The reason for the submission is that thromboplastin is NOT an enzyme as stated in the wiki article, but rather acts on the enzyme thrombokinase, now popularly known as Factor Xa. I want to correct the thromboplastin article, make an addition to the Factor X article, and insert a new article about thrombokinase, as shown below. This should clear up some long-standing confusion about these terms. How should I proceed?

Thromboplastin (TPL) or thrombokinase is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets. and that functions in the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin in the clotting of blood.

Proposed change: Thromboplastin (TPL) is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets.

History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). Factor X proposed History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). At that time, those investigators could not know that the human genetic defect they had identified would be found in the previously characterized enzyme called thrombokinase. Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964]

Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.

Thrombokinase new article: Thrombokinase, now commonly known as coagulation Factor Xa, is the pivotal proteolytic enzyme that converts prothrombin to thrombin. History: Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964] In the mid-1950s American and British physicians described an inherited deficiency of a coagulation factor in humans, which they named after their patients Rufus Stuart and Audrey Prower. By 1960 the Stuart-Prower factor was being called Factor X, and it soon became clear that activated Factor X, or Factor Xa, was equivalent to Milstone’s previously characterized bovine thrombokinase.

Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.


Leonard Milstone (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Leonard Milstone 5/13/2022

The article is at Draft:Thrombokinase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
We also have an article at Factor Xa. @Leonard Milstone, is Factor Xa the same molecule as the one you're writing about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library accessEdit

If you don’t make 10+ edits a month, your library access is denied. It would be easy to game the system, but it suggests to me that if you decide to spend some time researching sources in the library without making active edits, that won’t be possible - even if you log in to wikipedia every day. CV9933 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Research result on biochemical SIDS marker — posted in Talk for the SIDS articleEdit

https://www.biospace.com/article/researchers-answer-how-and-why-infants-die-from-sids/

Excerpt:

“The theory was that if the infant stopped breathing during sleep, the defect would keep them from startling or waking up.

“The Sydney researchers were able to confirm this theory by analyzing dried blood samples taken from newborns who died from SIDS and other unknown causes. Each SIDS sample was then compared with blood taken from healthy babies. They found the activity of the enzyme butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) was significantly lower in babies who died of SIDS compared to living infants and other non-SIDS infant deaths. BChE plays a major role in the brain’s arousal pathway, explaining why SIDS typically occurs during sleep.

“Previously, parents were told SIDS could be prevented if they only took proper precautions: laying babies on their backs, not letting them overheat and keeping all toys and blankets out of the crib are a few of the most important preventative steps. Importantly, they still are, as there is still no test for this biomarker.”

—- Jo3sampl (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand that historically, most "SIDS" deaths were "suffocation due to unsafe sleeping practices, but we didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so we're calling it SIDS" deaths. That can make research into SIDS complicated. I wonder what the next round of research will turn up? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

GHK-CuEdit

An editor raised a concern about the article Copper peptide GHK-Cu, as claims about its use in anti-aging creams are heavily based on primary sources. See this FTN discussion for details. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 09:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Ideally, that kind of content will say something closer to "Consumers spend billions of dollars each year" than "It works" (which is a fashion-and-beauty-standards claim, not a biomedical one; wrinkles are not a disease). Also, it looks like this MEDMOS recommendation is relevant for this article (and many, many others): Cite sources, don't describe them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Medical conditions with no known cureEdit

Category:Medical conditions with no known cure was created with no parent categories. I'm not knowledgeable about medicine so I'll just leave this here. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've placed it in Category:Human diseases and disorders. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 23:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it in a sensible place, ClaudineChionh.
I wonder if we should have such a category. Presumably everything in Category:Genetic disorders has "no known cure". It's not clear what really belongs there (e.g., Common cold? Teenage pregnancy? Amputation?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree this is a problematic category, implying medical conditions either have cures, or do not. For many "conditions" that's not applicable, or so simple. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I can't see a use for it. There was a "List of" article that got deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incurable diseases and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incurable diseases (2nd nomination). A category is even worse, since it has sourcing issues on top of everything else. -- Colin°Talk 07:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
And it's also misleading to the reader, who may be thinking of one of several meanings of the word "cure". For example, do we mean that we can get you to a point where it is as if you didn't have the condition, although you actually still have it? Or that we can make the condition properly go away permanantly? Or that we can make the condition go away and it'll be as if you've never had it in the first place? HIV would be a good example of this. Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
HIV appears to be curable. You just have to get Graft-versus-host disease once or twice first. (I think that sets a new standard for the cure being worse than the disease.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for following up. I reacted out of a de-orphaning impulse, but now I see in the history that the category was linked to that deleted list, so maybe this should also go to CfD. ClaudineChionh (talkcontribs) 12:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate you responding to that de-orphaning impulse.
I have listed this for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 18#Category:Medical conditions with no known cure. I hope that anyone with an opinion (including if you disagree with me!) will share your thoughts over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing on effectiveness of Standard Days MethodEdit

I've started a discussion at Talk:Calendar-based contraceptive methods concerning sourcing problems for effectiveness claims for the Standard Days Method (SDM). Input from WikiProject Medicine editors would be very welcome. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 vaccine side effects AfDEdit

Notice of a deletion discussion which may be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 vaccine side effectsRhododendrites talk \\ 15:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Current events 2022 monkeypox outbreak task forceEdit

Just alerting editors that the WikiProject of Current Events now has a task force to cover the ongoing 2022 monkeypox outbreak. Feel free to join if you want to help. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Please seeEdit

Related to this reverted change to MEDRS:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)