Talk:Fexaramine

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WP:NOTNEWS

I removed content based on a recent news story hyping a recently published PRIMARY source in this dif. Please see WP:MEDRS, particularly the discussion in the section, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources that discusses avoiding primary studies hyped by the media. I searched for secondary sources on this compound and found just the one, from 2004, and used it. As this molecule was published in 2003 and has never been in the clinic, it is very unlikely that it will ever become a drug. But we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree such research results shouldn't be given undue weight, but given the recent media attention there will be probably hundreds of people coming to this page wanting to know more about why this compound is worth researching. Surely it would be appropriate to at least make a brief mention of such widely reported results, with a caveat that the results remain speculative and unproven in humans. Meodipt (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually read the links I provided above, especially Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources which explicitly discusses media hype. yes the hype will bring some people for a few days. Then everyone will forget and the herd will move on to the next hyped thing. That is how it goes. We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
about this - it is WP:POINT-y and doesn't comply with MEDRS. But I am not going to edit war over bullshit and will let it stand. It is crap editing, however, and not what we should be striving for. We just don't use primary sources, no matter how hyped they are. Whatever. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am quite familiar with WP:MEDRS. It does not say anywhere that "we just don't use primary sources". What the guidelines say is that secondary sources should always be preferred to primary sources where both are available, and that primary sources should not be cited to contradict secondary sources, or to push a minority POV. But I don't see how that applies here, there is no controversy about saying that the reason this drug is still being studied 12 years after it was discovered, is that someone has now found that it might perhaps be useful as a treatment for weight loss, some day. And I'm not sure that MEDRS is even the correct guideline to apply when this is still just a pharmaceutical research tool, it is hardly a "medicine" when it hasn't even been proposed for Phase I trials in humans as yet (if indeed it ever does get this far). As it stands the article has no context to explain why this molecule is still being researched, and it hardly seems like misuse of a primary source to say that the reason for this is that some researchers think it might be useful for weight loss, this is exactly the kind of information that an encyclopedia page about the compound should mention. See WP:PRINCIPLE, the guidelines must be read in context and should be used flexibly when a strict literal interpretation would hinder improvement of the encyclopedia. Meodipt (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. If - and it is a huge "if" - the findings turn out to be replicable (which is a significant risk, which you would know if you have actually read the section of MEDRS I linked to), the findings will be picked up and elaborated on and will be discussed in a review article. That's when we introduce content about that into WP. Not before. We want to provide reliable information to the public. These findings may not be real or important. And really - the hype in the media is all about a weight loss pill - something about human health. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note the above "discussion" but I have edited this to include again the recent scientific findings which are of fundamental pharmacological and physiological interest. Clearly the press have extrapolated from these findings and this is speculative and does not need to find a place here. As it stands, this is not a Medical therapeutic article but a pharmacological one. We need more help on other compounds rather than edit wars! Jrfw51 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
we are an encyclopedia, we are WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTJOURNAL and we do not generate content based on primary studies. Every single policy calls us to use secondary sources. The scientific literature is where scientists go to read about science; WP is not scientific literature. There is no reason to not wait until this work is discussed in a review - this is pure WP:RECENTISM. again, we are an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes findings are important enough to include when they are first published in a primary source. See in the link you suggest WP:MEDRS, particularly the discussion in the section, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study, for example: ...". I, and at least one other editor feel this is the case. When this has been reviewed in a secondary source, or replicated, then please update what I have written. These results are consistent with other findings on FXR agonists e.g. PMID 23371517 and 23727264.Jrfw51 (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have added to WikiProject Pharmacology.Jrfw51 (talk)

Exactly, the pharmacological properties of a research tool compound are not a "current event", they would have been the same whenever it was discovered. WP:RECENTISM does apply here of course but the point of that guideline is not that recent information should not be added at all, but rather that it should be appropriately put in context and not given undue weight. As Jytdog mentioned above, there is only one secondary source that mentions this compound, from over 10 years ago, which says essentially that the FXR receptor is an interesting novel target but no one really knows what it might be useful for. Now that someone has discovered an application which might actually make money from it there is a brief media hype of course, but this should not distract us from the key fact that the pharmacological properties of the molecule have now been discovered, and this is encyclopedic information that should be added to the page. Certainly we should not repeat the media hype about the molecule, indeed the role of Wikipedia is to put this information in context, i.e. that these results in mice may not be applicable to humans and there are not even any plans to trial it in humans as yet. But it is still encyclopedic to explain why people are suddenly interested in this molecule again. Meodipt (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way of knowing of if these findings will be replicated or not. You guys are doing WP:OR by assigning any weight to these findings at all. I give up though, editors who abuse Wikipedia and fall for hype win the day today. I bow to the idiocy of the crowd. Consensus is consensus. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Jytdog on this. The compound is not of interest for its in vitro binding to a receptor or because it may cause weight loss in rats. These things are being studied to evaluate the compound as a potential human therapeutic and so discussion of the molecule really does not belong here until there are good WP:MEDRS quality refs. If we gave equal weight to every compound that showed interesting properties in early preclinical testing, we'd rapidly end up with The Encyclopedia of Compounds Formerly Evaluated as Potential Therapeutics. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second that--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Meodipt on this. This compound is no longer a drug candidate but remains of interest as a research tool. Hence the scope of this article is outside of WP:MED and WP:MEDRS does not apply. Boghog (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is being abused here is the overly broad application of WP:MEDRS. Boghog (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fexaramine may mediate gut inflammation in mice

This is reporting on a primary study, so not a citation for the article as per WP:MEDRS. Please be on the lookout for surveys of the literature, etc. The DOI is behind a paywall but is available at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org if you have access.

Peaceray (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Fexaramine"