Talk:Motor neuron diseases

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 November 2018 and 21 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rcchang16, Khemphill1, Kokinishimura. Peer reviewers: Mss87, Owens-Campbell, UCSF Roever.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALS final stage

My father was diagnosed as ALS/MND somewhere June 2004 (the symptoms started around mid of 2003). Currently, he needs respiratory system (with breathing machine) to support his life. For the past 1 and the half year, he was rescued with "resuscitation" at least 2 times. There is no cure so far, we had tried. Those who suffer the same, please accept the fact, tell the patient to accept. Those Scientist who eventually found solutions will be very much appreciated. Millionaire and billionaire, please donate for research generously. For mankind, thank you. LKS 20/1/2007

Guam disease

I just changed the bit saying that Guam is no longer an ALS hotspot- that's untrue. While the Chamorro's don't have the incidence they used to, ALS-PDC on Guam still occurs at higher levels than elswhere.

Enit 03:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stem cells, beijing, dr. huang

In response to both sides of the stem cell debate my own feeling is that Dr. Huang's "treatment" does nothing. This is on the basis of having seen several patients in our clinic who have been there and continued to deteriorate, or in some cases have serious adverse events, as well as a multitude of reports on both Braintalk and www.build-uk.net. Dr. Huang has received a lot of media attention recently in the US and UK so I anticipate that section will be added to over the coming weeks by new posters. It is also worth bearing in mind given the profit to be made from each patient ($20,000), that there is potentially an advertising element to positive spin on stem cell clinics. --PaulWicks 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First and Second, or Upper and Lower

How often (and whereabouts) are they called first and second motor neurons? Isn't upper and lower MNs much more common. I hate to quote the google test... so i won't. -T 05:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The international support organization uses the abbreviation ALS/MND to refer to the disease.

To which disease? The first paragraph taught us that MND refers to a whole group of diseases, of which ALS is only one member (even though Americans use the term "ALS" for the whole group). So what exactly is ALS/MND? The whole group or just one member? Also, does "Lou Gehrig's disease" refer to the whole group or just to the specific member? AxelBoldt 15:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is appears that in the US, ALS is used to cover all of the conditions that are elsewhere known as MND and that a number of conditions can be characterrised as MND. What specific variety of MND Lou Gerhig had I have no idea, but I would guess it is likely to be ALS given that ALS is the more common name for the conditions in the US. See http://www.alsmndalliance.org/whatis.html. Mintguy (T) 16:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article should be upgraded with a more natural language. This is a dictionary for everyone not purely a reference for specialists and medical scientists. I have a fealing that many of the strange scientific words could be replaced using dayily language words. If no such word exist one could give a short explanation in the text on most of theese words (preferrably not just in separate articles).

As it stands the article is written in quite scientific terms. Does anyone have any suggestions for how we might write parallel articles in scientific and lay language??? --PaulWicks 14:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article need moving?

Everywhere in the article, the condition is referred to as "Motor Neurone Disease" (note caps) and yet the title doesn't feature such capitalization. The other one is currently a redirect, but is that the right way around? - Vague | Rant 12:42, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Done. --PaulWicks 14:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then subsequently undone, because as pointed out, disease names are onl capitalised if eponymous. First I'd heard of it because that's how I've always written it in the UK including on official documentation. Is decapitalising disease names an american convention? The article is written about MND (rather than ALS) and "neurone" has been spelt in the English way rather than the American "neuron". Any thoughts?

--PaulWicks 07:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have an entirely different issue. If you search for "lou gehrig," you get various hits, the link "lou gehrigs disease" redirects you to the Motor Neurone Disease page, while the link "lou gehrig's disease" brings you to the ALS page, which is more accurate. At the least, they should both redirect to the same page. As i'm new to wikipedia, I do not know how to make this correction. Thanks.

Well spotted and good point. Done. --PaulWicks 21:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMA

> MMA removed as not strictly speaking an MND.

How/Why is MMA "not strictly speaking an MND"?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11551236&query_hl=1: 

> Monomelic amyotrophy (MMA) a variant of motor neuron disease

AHands 05:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not progressive to other regions, does not fall under the criteria of El Escorical Diagnostic criteria for ALS/MND, and is not recognised as such. That it is A disease which affects the Motor Neurones I agree, but that doesn't make it MND. PaulWicks 15:07, September 1st

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Motor_neurone_disease article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Motor_neurone_disease}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CSF protein patterns

I removed the newly added section reflecting this abstract. While it sounds fascinating, I am a bit weary of radical new concepts being introduced on Wikipedia as if they could be the next breakthrough. Only very rarely is this warranted (e.g. when a promising agent makes it to a phase III trial). It may be lightyears before this test is introduced in clinical practice, and it runs the perpetual risk of dying an early death, as have so many other diagnostic tricks of the past. JFW | T@lk 00:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I've put a little bit on there to warn that MND patients are particularly vulnerable to snake oil salesmen, the results of which I have seen many times. --PaulWicks 14:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Is this article abount MND or ALS

There may be a British/American terminology issue here, but, whatever the cause, the structure of the article is more than a little confused as a result. Why not have separate articles for the individual diseases? --Sjsilverman 23:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there is no strict definition for each of the various diseases, for instance no-one is quite clear on what varierty of the disease Stephen Hawking suffers from. Jooler 12:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'll try and clear this one up. The terminology is confused everywhere. Therefore the confusion here is reflective of that. I don't think splitting the article would be of any benefit, but I agree there might be more attempts made at consistency. I will have a go and then you can all play with it.

UK: MND = a group of diseases including ALS, PLS, PMA, and PBP. But it also equals ALS, the most common form of the disease. USA: ALS = a group of diseases including ALS, PLS, PMA, and PBP. 

    Lou Gehrig's Disease = as above

Stephen Hawking says in his introduction to "A Brief History of Time" that he has ALS. If he was being non-specific about his dx, as he is British, he would have said he has MND. Therefore he has ALS, albeit the most slowly progressive occurrence known. There is a seperate article on PLS and I'll start one on PMA. Cheers --PaulWicks 21:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From http://wiki.iop.kcl.ac.uk/default.aspx/Neurodegeneration/Classification%20of%20Motor%20Neurone%20Diseases.html - Increasingly, it is recognised that there is not a clear distinction between PMA, ALS, PLS, and ALS-FTD. ... a number of authors in the neuropathology literature have suggested that MND is best considered as a multisystem disorder with a number of phenotypes expressing differential involvement of motor and CNS systems -- MND cannot be subdivided into pure and distinct categories as identified by clinical signs and symptoms. Jooler 19:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO, ah the power of google. If you look carefully you'll find I actually wrote that!--PaulWicks 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

User:Velho cut and paste moved this page to Motor neuron disease. This was then reverted and "corrected" by a standard move by User:Jfdwolff. Neither of these page moves has been announced or suggested or discussed on the talk page and were made without any consensus. I have just moved the page back to Motor neurone disease. I also note that in the logs of this page is the following "09:36, 20 December 2005 Jfdwolff (Talk | contribs) moved Motor neurone disease to Motor neuron disease over redirect (more common and correct spelling) (revert)". In the US the term ALS is more common and MND tends to be used outside of the US, particularly Britain and Australia. The ALS/MND Alliance], the MND Association, the MND Association of Australia and a host of other organisations use the spelling Neurone. Jooler 10:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALS is *not* equivalent to MND. It's a form of MND, probably the most (in)famous one. (Anyways, Wikipedia has separate articles, this being a kind of "umbrella"). But, as far as spelling is concerned, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, draft revision September 2003, "By the late 20th cent. the form neuron was the commoner of the two, and had become standard in scientific usage." JackLumber. 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say they were equivalent. I know they are not equivalent. I said "In the US the term ALS is more common and MND tends to be used outside of the US, particularly Britain and Australia." - Jooler 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Brit so I wrote "neurone" in my thesis, "neurone" in my articles to JNNP, but have to change to "neuron" to submit to Neurology. In my view the americans spell it "neuron", there's more of them than there are of us so for our purposes I'd just say sod it (pardon the pun), and make it "neuron". So long as the pages redirect OK I'm sure 99% of readers won't notice or care. --PaulWicks 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "sod it" attitude is not one that is universally shared. Jooler 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very new here and am as close to being without a nationality as can be (having grown up all over), but I thought I'd point out that making this article 'neuron' does seem to make sense. 'Neuron' is accepted in the UK, esp in the academic community, so we'd be choosing a spelling that's accepted in the UK and the US. Moreover, most other articles with 'neuron(e)' in their titles are 'neuron'. /--Borgipedia 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page started life at Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (American usage) and was moved to the more all encompasing term Motor Neurone Disease with this edit [1] in 2003. Generally spellings are not changed wthout good reason. See WP:MoS#National varieties of English. This page has been established with this spelling for three years. Jooler 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm..... If the original page was in American English the title of the new page should have been in American English as well. Seems like a mistake was made. Shouldn't that be corrected? Seems esp so given that 'neuron' is accepted everywhere, but 'neurone' is not. /--Borgipedia 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? Where was a mistake made? The original page was at ALS if anything that was the mistake. ALS which is a a type of MND, but in the US ALS is usually used to refer to all types of MND and as I understand MND is rarely refered to in the US. The edit that created a page on MND used neurone because the editor chose to do so, conciously or unconciously choosing the BE spelling. Someone later created a page specifically about ALS. Jooler 21:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, because whoever made a page about Motor Neurone Disease would be English, because an American wouldn't call it that, they'd call it ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. "Sod it" was a joke. Neurone is the "correct" British spelling but so many people say and write "Neuron" without criticism that it is more the norm. My favourite bit of the guidelines on this state: "Finally, in the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page."--PaulWicks 21:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but shouldn't we use the spelling that's acceptable in both varieties of English, instead of the one acceptable only in one variety? /--Borgipedia 09:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look. User:Velho did a cut and paste move against MoS guidelines on National varieties of English and WP policy on cut n' paste moves. User:Jfdwolff then "corrected" the cut n'paste it by implementing a full move, that was still against MoS guidelines about page moves and varieties of English. I moved the page back and then as a common courtesy I explained why on this talk page. If you want to move the page then please use the normal procedures of requesting a page move by consensus. If it doesn't concern you too much then let's leave it as it is and get on with other things. Jooler 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Way to go, Dr. Wicks. Yes, apparently Brits make more use of Motor Neuron(e) Disease than Americans (although the name sure is not unknown in the U.S.). This, combined with Motor Neurone Disease being the original title, suggests that the current state of affairs be retained. Sidebar: Note that WP policies & guidelines about spelling have been often ignored or overridden—for example, the yoghurt article violates both the "original editor" rule and the "more internationally used spelling" rule. IMO, conducting polls to settle issues like this (usual WP practice) is just contradictory—there are rules, let's just apply them damn rules. (Not to mention that usually 60 to 90 percent of voters are biased.) I believe a committee should be appointed to enforce said rules. If anything, a lot of BS would disappear from talk pages---check out Talk:Theatre/Spelling. 100 K worth of BS. Theatre is the appropriate title—used worldwide, U.S. included. Period. Aluminium is the international standard, and so is sulfur. Yada yada yada. As simple as that... JackLumber. 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Jack Lumber has openly admitted that he follows me around to counter my "anti-American English systematic bias" - he means "systemic". See [[2]]. Jooler 07:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that he does indeed mean "systematic." But you may well believe he should mean "systemic." Myself, I think he means what he says, and may well be correct! --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-22 11:26 (UTC)

This might seem like a silly criterion, but "neuron" is a term from ancient greek, and doesn't have an "e" on the end. At least etymologically, "neuron" seems to make more sense. SB Johnny 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. /--Borgipedia 10:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this context the word came into the English language via the Belgian Arthur Van Gehuchten. His French spelling was adopted into English. Jooler 03:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't widely adopted. Most, or at least many, British scientists don't use that spelling, and no American scientists do. So going back to the Greek is probably the best solution, since it involves the most gentle compromise. --Borgipedia 20:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths from motor neurone disease

This article should not be in that category. It is already a member of the parent MND category. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it gets added to the category if you naively put a link to the category in 'See Also' !
Precede the word 'Category' with a colon !
I've done the same to ALS.
I've removed the 'list of sufferers' section - the categories do the job better ! (a bit bold, I know ...)
There are some duplicates between 'Forms' and 'See Also' links, but I'm not medically qualified to tell which are different and similar.
Pity about the neuron/neurone issue, but I'm not getting involved ...
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity

I've noticed that MND redirects here wthout question, but is quite often an abbreviation for Minimal (or Minor) Neurological Disorder (or Dysfunction). I haven't time to fix this right now, sorry. Gondooley (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links on medical pages

Dear all, further to a recent deletion of external links I thought I'd go and look up the manual of style guidance on external links on medical articles, which you can read here [3]. In particular please note Large disease-related organisations and government health departments sometimes produce web pages containing substantial information that would be of interest to readers wishing to further study the topic. and If the disease is very rare, then a manageable set of charitable organisations may be of encyclopaedic interest. In these cases, please prefer links that provide information that is likely to be interesting to readers worldwide, such as a detailed article on the specific topic. Thanks, --PaulWicks (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you add external links which provide a great wealth of information, not all of which could be used directly to improve the article. For example, websites which contain multimedia content (but not copyright violations), or which link to and review major papers on the topic. The majority of links I removed were to national support organisations, and there are probably dozens of these. Some of the links appeared to be no longer operational.-gadfium 19:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're addressing either point I made; the first was that links to "large disease-related organisations and government health departments" are OK, which suggests reintroducing MNDA, ALSA, NINDS, and NORD. The second point supports the idea that a limited number of national organizations is fine, which again speaks to ALSTDI, and some of the other national organizations. Multimedia content? This is a devestating neurological condition with relatively little public exposure, I don't think there are many suitable links out to sites like that, with the possible exception of DiPEx, which also happens to be a social community website and therefore a target of WP:EL. --PaulWicks (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links to sites that request money should be removed. --Arcadian (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific example in that list you're talking about? Also, Wikipedia asks me for money all the time ;-) --PaulWicks (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your verification of the links seems to be rather poor. Do you believe that you can defend the inclusion of each link you have re-added? Does each one provide information not available in any of the others, or is this really just a web directory?-gadfium 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium, I'm confused; do you mean you think my justification for the links is poor? I have verified that each one is a working link, when one of your original criticisms was that some of them were dead links. Going back to my earlier two points, which still remain unanswered, I don't have to defend each one because it's stated in the medical article guidelines on external links: Large disease-related organisations and government health departments sometimes produce web pages containing substantial information that would be of interest to readers wishing to further study the topic. and If the disease is very rare, then a manageable set of charitable organisations may be of encyclopaedic interest. The list contains linked to large disease-related organizations and a manageable set of charitable organizations. I hope that answers your questions. --PaulWicks (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the links you added was malformed. Someone else has since corrected it. I originally thought this was a dead link, but it does indicate that you failed to check that the links worked. I also see a link to a forum included. I note that MEDMOS says "All links must meet Wikipedia's external links guidelines, which in particular exclude discussion forums." It also says to avoid "Links that merely duplicate information that is already included in the article or in another external link".-gadfium 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would have taken as much effort to fix it as it did to mention it here on the talk page, a simple error on my part, please assume good faith. I'll remove the discussion forum. --PaulWicks (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section/ALS confusion

I apologise for summarily removing the etymology section of the article. Given that it was, at the time, the etymology of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, I thought it would be appropriate to move the definition the the specific article dealing with ALS. I see there has been an explanatory paragraph added. Despite this, wouldn't it be more appropriate to reserve the etymological definition of ALS to its corresponding article? In the article in general, in fact, I would say there is a little confusion between MND and ALS (as has already been mentioned on this page). Again,I apologise for removing the content without warning. In the future I will discuss significant changes beforehand. Lynad (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

The following statement was placed in the "Terminology section":

(This is wrong ALS is a type of MND this is like having an article on viruses and saying that in the US the term herpes is more commonly used.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.169.242 (talk • contribs)

I have left a {{dubious}} tag on the statement this refers to.-gadfium 05:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... ALS is a type of MND. But in the US they don't use the term MND, they use ALS as a blanket term for every motor neurone disorder including ALS, but also primary lateral sclerosis and progressive muscular atrophy, for example. People who know more about ALS/MND also use ALS to refer specifically to ALS within the umbrella terms of either ALS or MND. This is why the conference is called the "International Symposium on ALS/MND". I'll find a reference somewhere... It always boggles my mind that the first step in fighting this awful disease has to be wading through a mound of terminology, surely time for the world to agree on what to call it?!--PaulWicks (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American guideline

PMID 19822873 JFW | T@lk 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

The articles amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, motor neurone disease, primary lateral sclerosis, and progressive muscular atrophy need a diagram illustrating the upper and lower motor neurone tracts. Ideally I'd like to use this [4] which is something I use frequently (I adapted it from this[5] which is what I'd really like to use but I don't know where it originated from. Anyway, if anyone can source the copyright or help me make an original version it'd be very helpful, thanks. --PaulWicks (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to draw out the corticospinal tract to differentiate between upper motor neurons vs. lower motor neurons for further discussion of the aforementioned diseases. Unfortunately, the links from the above poster are no longer valid. Feel free to make suggestions and I can either redraw or someone else can make a new figure. --Rcchang16 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drew out a summary figure of the molecular mechanisms suggested by several review articles of the pathophysiology of ALS. Feel free to make suggestions and I can either redraw or someone else can make a new figure.--Rcchang16 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created a figure to describe the "Signs and Symptoms">>"Lower and upper motor neuron findings" based on the text: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PEx_UMN_vs_LMN.png Any suggestions are welcome! --Rcchang16 (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motor neurone OR motor neuron?

Sorry for reviving the spelling discussion of 2006 (above) but I currently clean up some articles on neuromuscular disorders and the spelling issue becomes somewhat of importance.

This article uses the spelling neurone. However, as mentioned many times, it is the form neuron that seems to be universally accepted in the scientific community: PubMed has 64,255 results for neuron and only 4,307 results for neurone; ScienceDirect has 34,965 titles for neuron(s) vs. 3,111 for neurone(s). As most if not all other Wikipedia articles use neuron — and as it looks somewhat weird when while describing neurons you have to link to "neurone diseases" — I strongly suggest this article is moved to Motor neuron disease. kashmiri (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also spoke with ALS/MND researchers about this too. It seems the main reasons for keeping it as "neurone" are historical reasons such as the naming of charities such as the Motor Neurone Disease Association rather than a clinical-scientific belief that it is a preferred term. Like with ALS>MND, the literature has already moved on to neuron>neurone, and so the time has probably come to rectify that here too. One other explanation I heard (but can't confirm as I am not a linguist) is that use of neuron(e) depends on whether the term is Greek or Latin. Incidentally, Google Books provides a useful means for establishing the decline of "neurone"[6] and "MND" [7] --PaulWicks (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

In draft ICD-11, motor neuron disease is a class of disorders that include hereditary motor neuropathies, spinal muscular atrophies, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, etc. I understand that motor neurone disease in popular British usage refers specifically to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. However, we have a separate article for ALS and thus motor neuron disease should present only the common parts of the range of disorders.

For example, symptoms of MND in the wider ("correct") sense do not show "at the age of 50-70": in spinal muscular atrophy, another motor neuron disease, symptoms are often apparent at birth or even before. Same about the description of disease progress, prognosis, etc. All these ALS-specific details should me moved to the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis article. Thanks to comment.

kashmiri (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kashmiri, I think the internet has increased the rate at which British patients understand their condition as "ALS" as well as "MND", or even as the International Symposium calls it, ALS/MND. Scientifically I am also seeing more British scientists write papers about ALS rather than MND and so I predict that MND will end up a deprecated term. We've also seen the field journal "Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Other Motor Neurone Disorders" being renamed simply "Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis". In its own weird way, doing a merge like this will accelerate that process (if only a tiny bit) and I don't think that's a bad thing. I'm going to be at the European ALS symposium in Dublin in a few weeks' time and I will canvas other delegates for views about this and get back to you, I'll also tweet some patients and the Motor Neurone Disease Association who are the biggest adherents of the MND name, and also of course the spelling of neurone vs neuron. What you might be seeing in your Google search above is British authors writing in American journals, which often specify US spelling. Thanks for asking first on the talk page, let's make sure we do this right and to minimize confusion. --PaulWicks (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PaulWicks, it's encouraging someone agrees this duplication has to be finally sorted out. I will be looking forward to learning your colleagues' views.
Another solution came to my mind recently, I will be grateful to hear your views on it. Since "motor neurone disease" is a local synonym of ALS, then motor neurone disease should plainly redirect to the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis article. Concurrently, motor neuron disease should contain a general overview of "disorders characterised by degeneration of motor neurons".
It seems to me that the confusion comes from the fact that "motor neuron disease" and "motor neurone disease" are treated as alternate forms of a single term – whereas in fact they designate entirely different objects (respectively, ALS and a class of medical conditions). kashmiri (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I attended the meeting this weekend and talked it through with a few other researchers who had similar views. I can see that your suggestions make a lot of sense too - what I've done is reframed *this* page as about the umbrella term, cutting it down significantly and adding a hatnote to redirect to ALS or in the "see also" to the more detailed and relevant disease page. I like the idea of a redirect for "motor neurone disease" but this page for "motor neurone diseases" but maybe let's see how others react to my bold-ish cuts first? Cheers! --PaulWicks (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOTORNEURON DISEASE

My question is i am a multiple sclerosis sufferer, can i there for is it possible for me to be affected with mnd?

Thank you

Kenny Lucas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.78.35.25 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sclerosis is not classified as a "motor neuron disease". Still, it is perfectly possible to have MS, MND, and any other disease on earth at the same time. kashmiri TALK 13:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

We need a section on treatment in this article. Even if there is no treatment available, then this fact needs to be stated in the article. If there are only treatments that can slow the progression of the disease and/or reduce the severity of symptoms, this needs to also be stated in this much needed section.--197.79.9.86 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Add new sections BELOW existing sections.
  2. I suggest you first check what the article is about - i.e., read the stated definition of MND.
kashmiri TALK 11:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the definition of MND, but how does that deal with the issue of treatment? Of course you need to know what it is in order to treat it, but that in itself is not enough to know what treatment options are available. I am asking for people who are more knowledgable in the field of MND to incorporate the treatment options available into this article if possible.--197.79.9.86 (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so it didn't cross your mind that since "motor neuron disease" is an umbrella term for (at least) five separate medical conditions, each of whom has a separate Wikipedia article, you should look for the "Therapy" section under respective articles? kashmiri TALK 15:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but generally there are only a few types and they are all divided into either upper motor neurons (UMN) or lower motor neurons (LMN), or both. The commonality being that motor neurons are affected. It wouldn't hurt to summarize a few of the main treatments used for the various types in the article and explain which is used for each treatment in a small paragraph under 'treatment', with advice to look up each version for more details (or something to that effect). And why do you have to be so sarcastic anyway? Are you incapable of providing a sensible reply in a rational tone. It not my fault that you can't explain yourself properly.--41.118.230.246 (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The use of talking about treatment is when there is a specific disease that has to be treated; there is hardly any point talking about treatment for a "category" of different conditions with so varied etiology. For example, gene therapy is being experimented with in ALS[8] as is the antisense oligonucleotide approach[9] (both with promising results by the way), but neither approach has any relevance whatsoever in PMA, PBP or PP where no genetic cause has been established to-date. Also, if you read about the five MNDs you will learn that pharmacological treatment differs greatly between them all. Why do you find it so hard to just click through to the relevant diseases? Why are you demanding that time is spent on writing and maintaining a section which would be nothing but a summary of what is being constantly worked on in other articles?
Sure, all suggestions are more than welcome but posters who pop in to an article with demands of the "I just need it" variety without any justification are usually met with such a response as mine. Hope you understand why. kashmiri TALK 18:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if ever felt hurt any bone marrow felt guilty to go to hospital to take medicine coz over dose kind of habitat early in his main body work dirt place I was committed in deases 222.127.50.209 (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead

Hi, @Jytdog: I see another issue with this article's lead, so I figured I would bring your comment to the talk page before doing anything else.

You commented "That is a ref about 1 disease. cannot be used to generalize. Please stop editing the lead only - please edit the body."

Which yeah, my edits are tied to experience with neurological "diagnostic odysseys", and specifically with HSP.

But if anything, I thought the previous version was not general enough, and did not reflect MNDs as a group. Instead of cutting a sentence about disability and disease course that was already there, I added to it to make it more broadly representative of all MNDs. (The citation was meant as an example of how the kind of progression implied by the original sentence doesn't describe at least one type of MND.)

It looks like your solution was to cut the original sentence (along with my additions) completely, which seems fine to me. But I also think that one of the most meaningful and accurate generalizations that can be made about MNDs as a group is that the group encompasses an extremely wide range of disability and disease courses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legbracesarecool (talk • contribs) February 2018 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your note. Articles like this, on disease classes, are very hard to work on. We have a style guide, WP:MEDMOS, that is well refined for specific diseases or conditions, but is not so great for classes like this. See for example bone disease which is just a list, and Neurodegeneration which is a hodge podge.
If you really want to expand this article, please consider following the disease sectioning in MEDMOS which is probably the best that one can do. And of course please use high quality refs per WP:MEDRS.
It is always better to flesh out the body of the article first, and then summarize there in the lead. Overly focusing on the lead, results in lopsided articles. Thanks again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MND classification

I hesitate to make changes on this page, but there appears to be inconsistency re: classification, ex:

"Spinal muscular atrophies (SMA) are sometimes included in the group by some neurologists but it is different disease with clear genetic cause."

"While MND refers to a specific subset of similar diseases, there are numerous other diseases of motor neurons that are referred to collectively as "motor neuron disorders", for instance disease belonging to spinal muscular atrophies.[2] However, they are not classified as "motor neuron diseases" by the tenth International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), which is the definition followed in this article."

HSP isn't grouped with the MNDs in ICD-10 though, but instead falls under G11. G12 ("Spinal muscular atrophy and related syndromes") contains the MND group (G12.2), and then the MND group contains G12.25, "Progressive spinal muscular atrophy." (Which seems to be another term for PMA, which is listed in the MND definition here, and also on the "Spinal muscular atrophies" page linked from this page...)

Removing HSP from the definitional list might be a fix, along with some clarification re: spinal muscular atrophy references in relation to ICD-10. Legbracesarecool (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Course Timeline

Hi all! We'll be editing this page as a part of a course we're doing in medical school. Our timeline for work is below.

By mid-Week 1 (11/28):

  • Kokinishimura: draft timeline of workplan
  • rcchang16: attend Wikipedia course introduction and complete tutorials. draft a timeline of my workplan and submit to neuroteam!
  • Khemphill1: Complete personal timeline.

By end of Week 1 (12/1):

  • Kokinishimura: find at least a few references about motor neuron disease and its s/s + causes, read the wiki manual about medical writing, prepare for WIP#1 on 12/3 (will attend remotely)
  • rcchang16: compile initial references for Pathophysiology and Terminology on Saturday 12/1. Prepare for WIP-WIP #1 on Monday 12/3
  • Khemphill1: Compile and submit group timeline to the talk page. Begin research for MND, focusing on Classification section. Review talk page comments and outline edits to Classification section on sandbox.

By mid-Week 2 (12/5):

  • Kokinishimura: Finalize references, come up with ways to organize S/S and Causes section and potential use of pics, other media, and figure out how to edit the Lead
  • rcchang16: Finalize references for Pathophysiology and Terminology
  • Khemphill1: Complete Classification section edits. Start working on Diagnosis section.

By end of Week 2 (12/8):

  • Kokinishimura: Have a presentable first draft of S/S, Causes, and Lead; prepare for group meeting on 12/9 and for WIP#2 on 12/11 (can't attend)
  • rcchang16: Begin initial drafts including 2 figures - one for UMN vs. LMN. and pathophysiology mechanisms. Prepare for meeting with group on 12/9 @ 3pm. Prepare for WIP-WIP #2 on Tuesday 12/11
  • Khemphill1: Complete Diagnosis section and start on research/writing for Management section. Begin to review edits from other members of the team/ask them to review my sections.

By mid-Week 3 (12/12):

  • Kokinishimura: Continue edits of S/S, Causes, and Lead; prepare for WIP#3 on 12/14 (can't attend)
  • rcchang16: Finalize first draft of text and figures for review. Start peer review of Sex reassignment surgery on Weds. 12/12. Prepare for WP-WIP #3 on Friday 12/14.
  • Khemphill1: Complete editing of Classification section. Complete drafts of additional sections: Diagnosis & Management. Try to draft at least one original diagram and include at least 2 other selected media. [COMPLETE DRAFT DUE FOR PEER REVIEW]

By end of Week 3 (12/15):

  • Kokinishimura: Complete peer review by 12/17, continue all edits, prepare for WIP#4 on 12/17 (attending in person)
  • rcchang16: Begin discussion with team members about edits and start to incorporate peer review comments (from Owens-Campbell?). Complete peer review of Sex reassignment surgery by Monday 12/17.
  • Khemphill1: Complete peer review by Monday 12/17. Finalize drafts of any new media/diagrams created.

By mid-Week 4 (12/19):

  • Kokinishimura: Finalize all edits, go over peer review comments, prepare for final WIP meeting on 12/21 (attending remotely)
  • rcchang16: Incorporate peer review comments and finalize figures and draft. Begin to reflect on course.
  • Khemphill1: Discuss edits/feedback from peer review on page. Make final edits.

By end of Week 4 (12/21):

  • Kokinishimura: Finalize all edits, attend WIP meeting remotely
  • rcchang16: Reflect on course at last WIP meeting.
  • Khemphill1: Attend final WIP remotely. Reflect with team on process, and grade our completed page based on rubric.

Thanks, --Khemphill1 (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with recent edits

Hi All, I strongly recommend to use the Talk page or the Draft userspace to work on the article. There are way too many errors that have been introduced by recent editing, while Wikipedia has to contain information as reliable as possible. Please keep in mind that thousands of people consult these articles every single day!

One important point you need to keep in mind is that this is an article on a group of disorders. This comes with a few caveats:

  • There is no point of having all the sections that are listed under WP:MEDORDER
  • The information given here has to be fully aligned with the information in individual articles
  • This is NOT an article on ALS, so sticking in whatever you can find on PubMed for "motor neuron disease" is wrong

Clearly, someone has confused pathophysiology with etiology. Google both terms! In the meantime, I am deleting the entire Pathophysiology section as wrong. Please feel free to redraft it from scratch, ideally here on the Talk page first, after doublechecking what pathophysiology means.

Also, the correct venue to describe the minute details of the molecular mechanism and systemic effect of ALS is the ALS article. Here, we can of course keep a one-sentence summary, but the appropriate venue for detailed analysis is there.

Given the sheer amount of problems, I decided to go ahead with a cleanup without waiting until the end of assignment. Simply, such unfinished, non-checked text cannot be posted to the Article namespace. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 16:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kashmiri! Thank you for your input and insight into how to approach editing this article. I am more than happy to address some of your concerns, particularly those regarding the "Linking" and "Pathophysiology" section.
Fundamentally, I do not think there is anything factually incorrect with the now deleted content, and thus respectfully disagree with it not being "reliable." However, I can agree that the "errors" are in the organization of this page, and potential suitability of moving content to other pages including Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
As a group, we clearly outlined a plan in the Talk page before making substantial edits to the actual article. I will not make any more edits to this page until a consensus has been reached.
# Linking
More than happy to limit the "overlinking" for readability.
# Pathophysiology and Moving to ALS section
As a medical student on the inpatient services, my teams and I typically define Pathophysiology with the molecular mechanisms leading to a disease. When researching common websites on the definition, I do see Wikipedia defines Pathophysiology: "pathophysiology seeks to explain the functional changes that are occurring within an individual due to a disease or pathologic state." Thus, I do acknowledge that there may be a better heading title for the now deleted section. Based on the WP:MEDORDER Content Sections, I am more than happy to change the title of the now deleted section to "Mechanisms" or "Pathogenesis" or "Etiology" if so desired. I do agree that I can include much of the now deleted content in the ALS section. That being said, I do not see why it would not be helpful to have a majority of the sections under WP:MEDORER, particularly a section that briefly elaborates on the complexity of such a debilitating disease. It would benefit the Wikipedia readers to have a small paragraph on mechanisms found in notable motor neuron diseases.
What I propose to include in Motor Neuron Disease>>"Mechanisms" section is the following:
Mechanisms
As previously discussed, there are clear genetic, environmental, toxic, or viral causes in a minority of Motor Neuron Diseases. However for the majority of Motor Neuron Diseases, the pathogenesis is idiopathic or unknown, complex, and multifactorial. The genetics of Motor Neuron Diseases provide clues as to the mechanismss. Implicated genes include SOD1, Dynactin p150 subunit (DCTN1), TARDBP, C9ORF72, ALSIN, Senataxin (SETX), Vesicle Associated Membrane Protein (VAPB), Microtubule associated protein tau (MAPT), and Androgen Receptor Gene. From these genetic associations, several proposed mechanisms that contribute to these debilitating neurodegenerative diseases include oxidative stress, excitotoxicity, damage to key cellular processes including axonal transport affecting endosomal trafficking, mitochondrial dysfunction, protein aggregation, defects in transcriptional regulation, and mitochondrial dysfunction. The final step in this complex neurodegenerative process is thought to be through programmed cell death resembling caspase-dependent apoptosis. Viruses associated with acute flaccid paralysis include polio enterovirus (resulting in poliomyelitis) and several enteroviruses (Coxsackie virus A and B, as well as Enterovirus-D68 and -A71).
Respectfully --Rcchang16 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rcchang16, what I see is sharp discordance between the definition presented in the lead section – which, although not perfect, can be adopted for the sake of this article – and the content of the subsequent sections.
The first, fundamental problem is that motor neuron diseases are defined variously depending on the source. The original version of the article – one that have had a consensus for many years – counted 5 disorders. You have now expanded the definition to include a handful of other neuromuscular disorders. Fair enough, there certainly are sources in support.
However, in the subsequent sections, you did not follow the definition. In some passages, you added diseases caused by viruses, toxins, etc. In the tables, on the other hand, you stuck to an even smaller selection of MNDs.
And then, in the now-deleted Pathophysiology section, you focused on ALS.
Now, what you are proposing, is again ALS-focused: even your proposed list of genes contains only genes linked to ALS but no other disorder of the group.
Consequently, the reader – me included – gets confused as to what this article is to be all about: (a) the diseases listed in the lead section; (b) any disease that affects motor neurons; or (c) ALS.
The second problem is that this is still an overview (summary) article whose primary aim is to define and explain the title term. Consequenty, only aspects common to all the diseases should be described, while disease-specific details must be moved to the articles on individual diseases. There is no point to discuss the various possible explanations behind ALS pathogenesis – there is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis article dedicated to that. The added benefit will be that those individual articles are watched by editors who specialise in those diseases and will be willing contribute or review the changes.
See some good examples of disease overview articles:
Lastly, pathophysiology commonly means how the disease (pathos) impacts, or manifests itself in, a patient's physiology. I do not know about your university, but the Pathophysiology article lists some good examples at the bottom. I suggest to follow it. Regards, — kashmīrī TALK 23:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rcchang16, as you did not address ant of the concerns above for over 3 weeks, I decided to go bold and limit the scope of the article to the disorders listed as MND in ICD-11. This I think brough more consistency and addressed the main concerns outlined above.
At the same time I find it regrettable that Mss87 and UCSF Roever approved an article that had so many serious problems unaddressed. Per Wikipedia guidelines, such far-reaching edits should be first drafted on the Talk page or in the userspace, and placed "live" (in the mainspace) only after the problems identified by other editors are addressed. I hope you will be willing to work on other articles in this spirit.
Regards, — kashmīrī TALK 00:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Peer Review: Great job! A few things to consider: *adding sources to the signs/symptoms section *adding some information to the treatment section, perhaps about the general parameters of current treatment, even though you do clearly explain in the section that most diseases don't have treatment *adding a culture and history section, since motor neuron disease is definitely present in pop culture *adding more pictures of physical exam findings if available *adding differential diagnosis to diagnosis section *adding sources to diagnosis section * clarifying what motor neuron disorders are *hyperlinking more frequently, rather than just the first time a term is mentioned. *adding a pathophysiology section Again, great article! Please let me know if you have any questions. Mss87 (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: JR Overall, great job! The article appears to have been improved significantly and certainly flows well. One suggestion I have is to clarify the terminology concerning ALS even earlier in the article if possible. Sometimes I have seen this done in the italicized section even before the lead begins. It is discussed several times throughout the article but it may serve well to redirect those only concerned with ALS even earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UCSF Roever (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Motor neurone disease" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Motor neurone disease and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 21#Motor neurone disease until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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