Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 132

Archive 125

←

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Therapeutic indication of medicinal plants

In case of most of the medicinal plants nothing can be found on the pages about their therapeutic use. One possible source is the webpage of ESCOP (European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy), which, according to the guideline, can be used as reference. Escop has several publications containing scientific assessment of medicinal plants. Their résumés, including the indications can be found on their webpage (https://escop.com/downloads/category/monograph/). I started to introduce these, but some editors reverted and suggested to discuss the reliability of ESCOP, as a source here. Since there is a demand for authentic information on modern phytotherapeutic use of plants (historical use is interesting, but sometimes useless), I think that it would be useful to use this source. I would be grateful for you comments. --Csupord (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Although ESCOP (a European herbalism society) appears to be a legitimate organization for studying the possible therapeutic effects of plants, the list of monographs offered is commercial (discouraged, see WP:PROMO) and not an encyclopedic source by itself (see WP:MEDREV), as the level of source quality and clinical consensus cannot be assessed from that list of monographs. ESCOP as an article is currently under a deletion discussion here. Clinical research in herbalism is typically of low quality (poor experimental designs, low subject numbers, inconsistent material preparations), discussed partly here. ESCOP publishes Phytomedicine which has an impact factor of about 4, depending on IF source, and among journals publishing herbalism articles, is probably the highest rated, indicating a generally low-quality field of clinical research in herbalism. Csupord has been using the ESCOP monograph list as a source over numerous plant articles shown here, meeting resistance among other editors. Generally, there are few examples of plant compounds succeeding in well-designed, rigorously-reviewed studies meeting WP:MEDSCI standards. --Zefr (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. However, to be objective: ESCOP monographs are available also in books, the reason why I cited them the nnline abstracts was to give access to the orioginal source - similarly as it happens in case of scientific articles. (Btw, is there any difference in the gusiness model of selling articles and selling monographs? As far as I know nobody has problems with citing articles that are available only after paying.) The therapeutic indication available in the outline is the same as in the books. Indeed, there are several poor clinical trials, just in case of synthetics. Of course everybody has the right to form opinion about scientific journals, but I have to tell that this journal is highly ranked and aknowledged in the scientific community. Nevertheless, Phytomedicine itself has nothing to do with the therapeutic indications of the monographs, that are partly based on clinical data, partly on empirical knowledge. In modern phytotherapy both well-established and traditionally based indications are acceptable, see https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/herbal-medicinal-products My aim was to introduce information based on scientific assessment of available knowledbe, both experimenmtal and empirical. I think it is beter to give information based on the assessment of a scientific association than to present historical data from old books - as it is now in the majority of the cases.Csupord (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Csupord

It doesn't appear to meet MEDRS, so would likely require caveats similar to what's used for folk remedies. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr and Ronz: So you'd prefer to see something maybe from a reference book published by an established publishing house that regularly works in medical and scientific areas, such as Thieme Medical Publishers, right? Not just something on their website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No. I'm assuming that MEDRS sources are unavailable and that this should be treated similarly to folk remedies. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, no. Topics in herbal medicine should be held to the same clinical source rigor that WP:MEDSCI prescribes. Csupord argues above that it is better to provide the ESCOP monographs as "available knowledge", but I say that knowledge mainly is unrigorous, unconvincing, and usually unsubstantiated, so should not be discussed as if it is, and should not be sourced by dubious "phytotherapy" journals or books. This is an example (among dozens of edits using ESCOP monographs) that Csupord added (all were reverted by other editors), showing false conclusions and folk uses of phytotherapy that may mislead unsuspecting encyclopedia users. On his user page, Csupord reveals that phytotherapy is his topic of university research, so WP:COI in promoting ESCOP literature may be at play. He is also an ESCOP member and leads a "medicinal plant" committee. --Zefr (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

MEDSCI says "present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in...in textbooks, or in some forms of monographs". WP:MEDBOOK says that "a monograph or chapter in a textbook intended for professionals or postgraduates" is better than a textbook for student. You seem to be assuming that the source's reliability can be determined according to whether it supports a particular POV, rather than according to the criteria laid out in the sourcing policies and guidelines (which look a lot more like "It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s)" than "that entire field is unconvincing, so we can't use sources written by anyone in it"]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the "monographs" published by ESCOP are online pdfs written by their members. So what makes ESCOP a reliable publishing house? Is it a reputation for publishing high quality textbooks and monographs? Are these used extensively in higher education courses? I'm sorry but I can't take seriously a publisher/author that so vastly overstates the effects of herbal remedies when compared to a mainstream source like the European Medicines Agency. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't asked whether ESCOP is a reliable publisher of their website. I've asked whether Thieme Medical Publishers, whose books appear to have been cited in more than 100 articles, is the kind of publisher that MEDBOOK is looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, maybe I am not an authentic person as a researcher involved in this field, as a teacher at a university, as an author of several reserch paper dealing with med plants (including meta-analyses), as an ESCOP scientific board member and as an ex-member of the European Medicines Agency Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products. Maybe it would be easier if I would be an outsider. However, I have to draw your attention that ESCOP monographs are not simply written by ESCOP sci com members, but disussed by all the members in several rounds and supervised by acknowledged supervising editors (https://escop.com/about-escop/supervising-editors/). And if you think that ESCOP monographs overstate the effects compared to EMA monograps, I have to admit, that this is not the case. If an EMA monograph contains only a traditional-use indications, these are based not on real empirical knowledge, but only on the evidence which comes from products that are on the European market since at least 30 years. ESCOP monographs are more pragmatic, since these take into account all the evidences, without time and geographical limits. Let us take milk thistle as an example. The standardized extract of this (silymarin) is available all over Europe as hepatoprotective medicine, its efficacy is proven by several studies, but according to EMA the only indication is: "Traditional herbal medicinal product for the symptomatic relief of digestive disorders, sensation of fullness and indigestion and to support the liver function, after serious conditions have been excluded by a medical doctor." (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/herbal-monograph/final-european-union-herbal-monograph-silybum-marianum-l-gaertn-fructus_en.pdf) Do we really think that this reflects the real therapeutic use? Csupord (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Csupord

WP:MEDSCI provides key terms guiding choice of quality sources for medical content that should apply to the phytotherapy literature: 1) prevailing scientific consensus (by reputable experts grounded in evidence-based medicine), 2) rigorous well-designed and conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as required for approval of prescription drugs, 3) applying skepticism about disreputable journals, fields, and traditional medicine practices, which collectively represent quackery, among other examples. The EMA position on herbal therapies acknowledges centuries-long history in Europe of using herbal remedies, and is not an endorsement of phytotherapies as conventional medicines. Csupord emphasizes that ESCOP monographs are based on long-term use of herbal agents, but the EMA states such uses are "without the supervision of a medical practitioner", meaning without evidence-based medicine. Csupord then claims that "silymarin is available all over Europe as hepatoprotective medicine, its efficacy is proven by several studies", but there is no MEDSCI source that would support that conclusion, but rather the opposite: 1) no benefit, no effect on liver inflammation; 2) silymarin should be avoided for its side effects and potentially adverse interaction with prescribed drugs; 3) a 2007 Cochrane review stated there was no evidence for liver effects of silymarin; 4) the 2018 EMA position statement on it shows there are no "well-established uses", and 5) Drugs.com says there is no evidence that "milk thistle is effective in treating any medical condition. Medicinal use of this product has not been approved by the FDA. Milk thistle should not be used in place of prescribed medication". There is no quality evidence or consensus of clinical experts supporting its use.

Nor will there be to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies like EMA or the FDA: silymarin (a seed extract) and similar "phytotherapies" cannot be financed for sufficient pivotal RCTs because such research programs are prohibitively expensive and the compound is unpatentable, leaving the research sponsor no protection of intellectual property for its investment. A 2018 JAMA analysis of clinical trial costs to fully develop a true drug candidate showed a median total-development cost of US$648 M, with average pivotal trials costing $19 M, and that a clinical research program must prove the new (herbal) agent "to be noninferior with clinical benefit end points compared with an agent already available," a standard phytotherapies rarely, if ever, reach.

Jimmy Wales said: "If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately." The field of phytotherapy, the journal, Phytomedicine, and ESCOP monographs do not meet these standards. It is justified that edits like those Csupord made will continue to be reverted. --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Advice on referencing

Eg...With Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2...The reference to the "2019-CoV entering human cells via these receptors" previously used this which took information from this and this. However, the reference is now the primary research paper. What's the best way to reference the sentence "ACE2 receptors have been shown to be the entry point into human cells for some coronaviruses, including the SARS virus, and the Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)." ...the secondary source alone or both a secondary and primary or other? Whispyhistory (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably not the news story (which is probably primary; see WP:PRIMARYNEWS and Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent). Sometimes it's easier, especially with stuff that's in the news, to cite multiple sources. See also WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for advice on combining the citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for replying @WhatamIdoing:...much clearer. I'll read through the links you have sent. Whispyhistory (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Therapeutic indication of medicinal plants

In case of most of the medicinal plants nothing can be found on the pages about their therapeutic use. One possible source is the webpage of ESCOP (European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy), which, according to the guideline, can be used as reference. Escop has several publications containing scientific assessment of medicinal plants. Their résumés, including the indications can be found on their webpage (https://escop.com/downloads/category/monograph/). I started to introduce these, but some editors reverted and suggested to discuss the reliability of ESCOP, as a source here. Since there is a demand for authentic information on modern phytotherapeutic use of plants (historical use is interesting, but sometimes useless), I think that it would be useful to use this source. I would be grateful for you comments. --Csupord (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Although ESCOP (a European herbalism society) appears to be a legitimate organization for studying the possible therapeutic effects of plants, the list of monographs offered is commercial (discouraged, see WP:PROMO) and not an encyclopedic source by itself (see WP:MEDREV), as the level of source quality and clinical consensus cannot be assessed from that list of monographs. ESCOP as an article is currently under a deletion discussion here. Clinical research in herbalism is typically of low quality (poor experimental designs, low subject numbers, inconsistent material preparations), discussed partly here. ESCOP publishes Phytomedicine which has an impact factor of about 4, depending on IF source, and among journals publishing herbalism articles, is probably the highest rated, indicating a generally low-quality field of clinical research in herbalism. Csupord has been using the ESCOP monograph list as a source over numerous plant articles shown here, meeting resistance among other editors. Generally, there are few examples of plant compounds succeeding in well-designed, rigorously-reviewed studies meeting WP:MEDSCI standards. --Zefr (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. However, to be objective: ESCOP monographs are available also in books, the reason why I cited them the nnline abstracts was to give access to the orioginal source - similarly as it happens in case of scientific articles. (Btw, is there any difference in the gusiness model of selling articles and selling monographs? As far as I know nobody has problems with citing articles that are available only after paying.) The therapeutic indication available in the outline is the same as in the books. Indeed, there are several poor clinical trials, just in case of synthetics. Of course everybody has the right to form opinion about scientific journals, but I have to tell that this journal is highly ranked and aknowledged in the scientific community. Nevertheless, Phytomedicine itself has nothing to do with the therapeutic indications of the monographs, that are partly based on clinical data, partly on empirical knowledge. In modern phytotherapy both well-established and traditionally based indications are acceptable, see https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/herbal-medicinal-products My aim was to introduce information based on scientific assessment of available knowledbe, both experimenmtal and empirical. I think it is beter to give information based on the assessment of a scientific association than to present historical data from old books - as it is now in the majority of the cases.Csupord (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Csupord

It doesn't appear to meet MEDRS, so would likely require caveats similar to what's used for folk remedies. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr and Ronz: So you'd prefer to see something maybe from a reference book published by an established publishing house that regularly works in medical and scientific areas, such as Thieme Medical Publishers, right? Not just something on their website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No. I'm assuming that MEDRS sources are unavailable and that this should be treated similarly to folk remedies. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, no. Topics in herbal medicine should be held to the same clinical source rigor that WP:MEDSCI prescribes. Csupord argues above that it is better to provide the ESCOP monographs as "available knowledge", but I say that knowledge mainly is unrigorous, unconvincing, and usually unsubstantiated, so should not be discussed as if it is, and should not be sourced by dubious "phytotherapy" journals or books. This is an example (among dozens of edits using ESCOP monographs) that Csupord added (all were reverted by other editors), showing false conclusions and folk uses of phytotherapy that may mislead unsuspecting encyclopedia users. On his user page, Csupord reveals that phytotherapy is his topic of university research, so WP:COI in promoting ESCOP literature may be at play. He is also an ESCOP member and leads a "medicinal plant" committee. --Zefr (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

MEDSCI says "present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in...in textbooks, or in some forms of monographs". WP:MEDBOOK says that "a monograph or chapter in a textbook intended for professionals or postgraduates" is better than a textbook for student. You seem to be assuming that the source's reliability can be determined according to whether it supports a particular POV, rather than according to the criteria laid out in the sourcing policies and guidelines (which look a lot more like "It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s)" than "that entire field is unconvincing, so we can't use sources written by anyone in it"]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the "monographs" published by ESCOP are online pdfs written by their members. So what makes ESCOP a reliable publishing house? Is it a reputation for publishing high quality textbooks and monographs? Are these used extensively in higher education courses? I'm sorry but I can't take seriously a publisher/author that so vastly overstates the effects of herbal remedies when compared to a mainstream source like the European Medicines Agency. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't asked whether ESCOP is a reliable publisher of their website. I've asked whether Thieme Medical Publishers, whose books appear to have been cited in more than 100 articles, is the kind of publisher that MEDBOOK is looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, maybe I am not an authentic person as a researcher involved in this field, as a teacher at a university, as an author of several reserch paper dealing with med plants (including meta-analyses), as an ESCOP scientific board member and as an ex-member of the European Medicines Agency Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products. Maybe it would be easier if I would be an outsider. However, I have to draw your attention that ESCOP monographs are not simply written by ESCOP sci com members, but disussed by all the members in several rounds and supervised by acknowledged supervising editors (https://escop.com/about-escop/supervising-editors/). And if you think that ESCOP monographs overstate the effects compared to EMA monograps, I have to admit, that this is not the case. If an EMA monograph contains only a traditional-use indications, these are based not on real empirical knowledge, but only on the evidence which comes from products that are on the European market since at least 30 years. ESCOP monographs are more pragmatic, since these take into account all the evidences, without time and geographical limits. Let us take milk thistle as an example. The standardized extract of this (silymarin) is available all over Europe as hepatoprotective medicine, its efficacy is proven by several studies, but according to EMA the only indication is: "Traditional herbal medicinal product for the symptomatic relief of digestive disorders, sensation of fullness and indigestion and to support the liver function, after serious conditions have been excluded by a medical doctor." (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/herbal-monograph/final-european-union-herbal-monograph-silybum-marianum-l-gaertn-fructus_en.pdf) Do we really think that this reflects the real therapeutic use? Csupord (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Csupord

WP:MEDSCI provides key terms guiding choice of quality sources for medical content that should apply to the phytotherapy literature: 1) prevailing scientific consensus (by reputable experts grounded in evidence-based medicine), 2) rigorous well-designed and conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as required for approval of prescription drugs, 3) applying skepticism about disreputable journals, fields, and traditional medicine practices, which collectively represent quackery, among other examples. The EMA position on herbal therapies acknowledges centuries-long history in Europe of using herbal remedies, and is not an endorsement of phytotherapies as conventional medicines. Csupord emphasizes that ESCOP monographs are based on long-term use of herbal agents, but the EMA states such uses are "without the supervision of a medical practitioner", meaning without evidence-based medicine. Csupord then claims that "silymarin is available all over Europe as hepatoprotective medicine, its efficacy is proven by several studies", but there is no MEDSCI source that would support that conclusion, but rather the opposite: 1) no benefit, no effect on liver inflammation; 2) silymarin should be avoided for its side effects and potentially adverse interaction with prescribed drugs; 3) a 2007 Cochrane review stated there was no evidence for liver effects of silymarin; 4) the 2018 EMA position statement on it shows there are no "well-established uses", and 5) Drugs.com says there is no evidence that "milk thistle is effective in treating any medical condition. Medicinal use of this product has not been approved by the FDA. Milk thistle should not be used in place of prescribed medication". There is no quality evidence or consensus of clinical experts supporting its use.

Nor will there be to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies like EMA or the FDA: silymarin (a seed extract) and similar "phytotherapies" cannot be financed for sufficient pivotal RCTs because such research programs are prohibitively expensive and the compound is unpatentable, leaving the research sponsor no protection of intellectual property for its investment. A 2018 JAMA analysis of clinical trial costs to fully develop a true drug candidate showed a median total-development cost of US$648 M, with average pivotal trials costing $19 M, and that a clinical research program must prove the new (herbal) agent "to be noninferior with clinical benefit end points compared with an agent already available," a standard phytotherapies rarely, if ever, reach.

Jimmy Wales said: "If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately." The field of phytotherapy, the journal, Phytomedicine, and ESCOP monographs do not meet these standards. It is justified that edits like those Csupord made will continue to be reverted. --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Advice on referencing

Eg...With Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2...The reference to the "2019-CoV entering human cells via these receptors" previously used this which took information from this and this. However, the reference is now the primary research paper. What's the best way to reference the sentence "ACE2 receptors have been shown to be the entry point into human cells for some coronaviruses, including the SARS virus, and the Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)." ...the secondary source alone or both a secondary and primary or other? Whispyhistory (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably not the news story (which is probably primary; see WP:PRIMARYNEWS and Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent). Sometimes it's easier, especially with stuff that's in the news, to cite multiple sources. See also WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for advice on combining the citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for replying @WhatamIdoing:...much clearer. I'll read through the links you have sent. Whispyhistory (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Third Man factor

We don’t really have an active science or skepticism board, and since this topic should fall under the general category of medicine, I’m hoping someone can take a quick look.

While working on cleaning up various articles about Ernest Shackleton and the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition from the early 20th century, I noticed a see also link to Third Man factor from the Shackleton article, based on his personal experiences detailed in the memoir, South.

Looking at third man factor, I’m afraid that there is more of an emphasis on religion and the paranormal than there is on medical explanations for this alleged phenomenon. I’m wondering if someone here can try to fix that based on the most recent research. I always thought this was related to hypnogogic hallucinations from brain hypoxia, but there might be other causes involved. I’ve heard similar anecdotes and experiences stemming from high fevers, as well as intoxication caused by accidental ingestion of plants in the family Solanaceae. The article on oneirogen indirectly points in this direction.

Whatever the medical reasons for this experience, I’m fairly sure there is a better redirect, preferably one under the umbrella of the medicine project. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Update - based on the literature, I would like to propose that the article should be moved to sensed presence effect, with any discussion of spirituality or the paranormal relegated to prescientific, historical background reference. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note, I’ve found the parent topic at its historical synonym, Anomalous_experiences#Sense_of_presence, and I’ve placed merger notices with a centralized link to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I just don’t think that project or the psychology project is all that active. If you accept that psychology is a branch of medicine, then wouldn’t it be appropriate for this project to address the issue? I can briefly summarize it for you:

1. The article subject term, Third Man factor, was invented by author John G. Geiger and used in several of his books and media works.

2. The subject of Third Man factor duplicates an already existing topic that is authoritatively sourced at Anomalous_experiences#Sense_of_presence.

3. I’ve placed a merge on the former term pointing to the latter.

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Psychology is distinct from the related branch of medicine, Psychiatry; psychosis is a symptom that can be studied by Psychologists and Psychiatrists. Then again, perhaps this is just dancing on the head of a pin. Klbrain (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that proposing a merge is a good idea, but I'm known to be a mergist, so take that with a grain of salt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Third Man factor

We don’t really have an active science or skepticism board, and since this topic should fall under the general category of medicine, I’m hoping someone can take a quick look.

While working on cleaning up various articles about Ernest Shackleton and the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition from the early 20th century, I noticed a see also link to Third Man factor from the Shackleton article, based on his personal experiences detailed in the memoir, South.

Looking at third man factor, I’m afraid that there is more of an emphasis on religion and the paranormal than there is on medical explanations for this alleged phenomenon. I’m wondering if someone here can try to fix that based on the most recent research. I always thought this was related to hypnogogic hallucinations from brain hypoxia, but there might be other causes involved. I’ve heard similar anecdotes and experiences stemming from high fevers, as well as intoxication caused by accidental ingestion of plants in the family Solanaceae. The article on oneirogen indirectly points in this direction.

Whatever the medical reasons for this experience, I’m fairly sure there is a better redirect, preferably one under the umbrella of the medicine project. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Update - based on the literature, I would like to propose that the article should be moved to sensed presence effect, with any discussion of spirituality or the paranormal relegated to prescientific, historical background reference. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note, I’ve found the parent topic at its historical synonym, Anomalous_experiences#Sense_of_presence, and I’ve placed merger notices with a centralized link to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I just don’t think that project or the psychology project is all that active. If you accept that psychology is a branch of medicine, then wouldn’t it be appropriate for this project to address the issue? I can briefly summarize it for you:

1. The article subject term, Third Man factor, was invented by author John G. Geiger and used in several of his books and media works.

2. The subject of Third Man factor duplicates an already existing topic that is authoritatively sourced at Anomalous_experiences#Sense_of_presence.

3. I’ve placed a merge on the former term pointing to the latter.

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Psychology is distinct from the related branch of medicine, Psychiatry; psychosis is a symptom that can be studied by Psychologists and Psychiatrists. Then again, perhaps this is just dancing on the head of a pin. Klbrain (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that proposing a merge is a good idea, but I'm known to be a mergist, so take that with a grain of salt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome FAR

I have nominated Asperger syndrome for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Heads up - public health in India

Heads up from here, in case you see a sudden influx of med related editing. Here is the actual source since the one linked is wrong. Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:SWASTHA. It looks like the main activity will be translating health-related articles from English into various Indian languages. It sounds like an Indian-based version of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am one of the organizers for the SWASTHA project. I was not expecting that news piece and was planning on a later presentation to WikiProject Medicine, but I can preview it now. Yes, the goal is to apply the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force model to about 10 English language article to translate them in about 10 languages of India. The project has three parts: managing the Wikipedia content development and translation; documenting a methodology for any expert organization to contribute content development labor to Wikipedia projects; and documenting ethical considerations when anyone adapts English language medical information to a language where many users are less empowered in Wikipedia or otherwise.

I am not expecting disruption of English Wikipedia but I have lightly drafted a couple of articles which are a bit unusual:

• Neglected tropical diseases in India
• Maternal mortality in India

Wikipedia has always had challenges with intersectional articles. For the NTDs, we already have diagnosis, treatment, prevention, etc content in the main articles for each disease. That means that if there is an NTD India article, it should not repeat much, and instead should say what is different about India.

Regarding translation, the challenge is that if we adapt these for Hindi, we have to produce original content which removes Western bias from the core medical articles and probably replace it with bias for the region of Hindi speakers. This requires producing some original content, and we have no established methodology to present to organizations like universities which would want language students and medical students to collaborate on this.

This is what I have for now. Thanks for raising it. I will probably have more to show and be open for general feedback in a few months. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Eek! When you say "removes Western bias" in this context the alarm bells on my Ayurvedic and homeopathic woo detectors all start sounding. Please tell us that they just intend to correct issues of focus, rather than to "balance" coverage of evidence-based medicine with traditional. Official India is all too willing to support AYUSH in the absence of good evidence. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: This project has a foundation in the standard of quality of English Wikipedia. Discussion about Ayurvedic content is outside the scope of what I plan to do. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and I am unable to say what anyone might do in India, which is a big country with lots of editors.

I will show some Western bias, which would be easy to spot in lots of places. Look at the lead of Tuberculosis. In the Western World TB is a concern as a co-morbidity with HIV/AIDS. For India, HIV has a much lower incidence than in the Western world, so perhaps we omit HIV and instead talk about co-morbidity with a disease which is common in India. The English lead suggests vaccination for as a choice for people who live or work with people with TB and rarely children, but in India, the at-risk group includes young children. In English articles like TB we frequently include United States epidemiology in the lead, but for Hindi language, another comparison could be more meaningful. The English article mentions "consumption" as an old name, and if we sent this to a translator they might try to translate that, but I know that it would be better to just strike English language historical terms.

Most English Wikipedia articles will have these kinds of Western bias and it takes some planning to identify and adapt this kind of text for translation. If you can think of a clever way of how and where to document the identification of this kind of cultural specificity then I would appreciate your advice. If "Western bias" is a term that puts you off, what should we call this kind of editing before translation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Western focus" maybe? I see where you're coming from but I think "Western bias" makes it sound like these articles are slanted in a way that violates NPOV. The examples you mention above aren't really NPOV issues, it's more of an editorial decision to focus on things that are likely to be relevant to English-speakers, versus focusing on things that would be relevant to Hindi-speakers when writing in Hindi. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Talking more about Western geography than India in that article probably is a straight-up violation of NPOV, of the {{globalize}} variety. There are more TB patients just in the city of Mumbai than in the entire United States and Canada combined. A neutral article might include English-language content (like the old name of consumption), but it would have geographically fair content, which means Indian statistics in preference to any other country. Other countries might be included, too, but India should be the headline for tuberculosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blue Rasberry: Thanks for allaying the AYUSH concern, but en:Tuberculosis should give English-language readers a global perspective on the global subject. We already have en:Tuberculosis in India to give English-language readers a global perspective on localized subject matter (though it clearly needs some attention). WAID is right that the parent article does need globalization. However, if the goal is to match subject localization to the reader, then wp:SWASTHA/Goals should change the article being chosen for translation, not mangle the translation process. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I've purged a predatory source from Maternal mortality in India, replacing it with tags, but really medical editors should evaluate if those claims should be outright purged, or a WP:MEDRS found. Some Medknow journals remain cited too (DOI 10.4103/...), but those are more borderline. Could still fail WP:MEDRS though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

will look over weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC on the MSH drug database

We should have a fairy bread index for RFCs. This one would win the best prize.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. Several of you are already there, and I've love to see more of you join and share your views, whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with other comments, adding new ideas, asking questions, or contributing in other ways.

We're talking about everything (including the historical price of bread in the Netherlands – it's a truly wonderful discussion), but the central subject is how we should/shouldn't use a single database, the International Medical Products Price Guide (IMPPG, or 'the MSH database'), in our articles about common generic drugs. Three examples from articles have been given, and your views are wanted on any and all aspects of it.

Based on the specific comments, we'll sort out ways to improve the drug articles that are currently using this database. Based on the general comments, I hope to use all of your advice to write a proposal about how to describe prices, for MEDMOS. But that's for later, not for this week. This week, just come tell us what you think should be done with this one source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Puberty blocker article

Puberty blocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Puberty blocker#Neutrality warning/omitting endometriosis use of these drugs. The same newbie editor also created a section on the same topic right beneath it. A permalink for it is here.

More eyes from this WikiProject are needed on the article regardless. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Enterovirus 71 article. Which wording to use?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Enterovirus 71#EV71 or EV-A71?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Mutation vs Variant

There is some disagreement on whether using "mutation" is acceptable when describing a rare change in DNA that results in a disorder (in this case CDK13-related disorder) or whether we should require the use of the less offensive "variant". This has come up by way of a GA review that can be found at Talk:CDK13-related disorder/GA1. I have found no discussions concerning this issue here, at the MCB wikiproject or the NPOV noticeboard page so do not know what the consensus on this is or if it has even come up before. As it could potentially effect multiple articles it feels more prudent to discuss it here than at a review page. @EllenCT, Canada Hky, and SUM1: who were involved in the review. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Both terms are used in clinical practice and mean different things. A mutation is a change in DNA. A variant is a DNA sequence that is different from a chosen reference. Mutations can cause variants to appear in a genomic assay, but not vice versa. We speak of nonsense mutations, but not nonsense variants. And so son. They really are not interchangable, so which term to use depends on the context and intended purpose.--{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mark viking: That is very true. An event vs. a state. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I really like the idea that mutation = event, variant = state; when I am king, I will mandate that everyone uses this precise and unambiguous nomenclature. Until then, I'll note that it's common for "mutation" to refer to the outcome of the event (i.e., the state), rather than the event itself. This can be verified by Googling "has a mutation" or "found a mutation". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

See also this article in BMC Medical Genomics, linked by EllenCT at the GA discussion. In the context of personal genomics, it defines "mutations" as "DNA variants detectable in ... <1 % of the population" – a state-based definition. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: Maybe you misunderstood that I was actually in support of retaining the use of mutation on Wikipedia. My comment was a defence against those trying to say you can't say a genetic condition is caused by a mutation, when the fact the word even more so refers to an event than variant does means there's even more reason to use it. But if it doesn't, according to your source, even better. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(I've already learned something interesting today! Thanks for posting the explanation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a few medical terms that are now considered offensive, typically because schoolchildren use them pejoratively in the playground: "cretin", "spastic", "mentally retarded". Is "mutation"/"mutant" really in this category?

How long before "variant" is considered offensive? *sigh* Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Deviant has made the transition.

Mutation is fine, and WP:UNCENSORED. The encyclopedia should reflect the field as it is, not as we think it should be. Klbrain (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a good source at hand, so that this explanation can be added to the top of articles such as Mutant, Mutation, Allele, and Variant of uncertain significance? It shouldn't exactly say read like a hatnote ("If you're looking for the article about the event, rather than the state, then please see..."), but readers should be left with the same impression from reading the lead of the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have textbook sources for "mutation" and "variation" which agree but not for "mutant" and "variant". Graham Beards (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't think this is necessary. Both mutant and allele mention mutation in the first sentence, and "mutant" is much less used than "mutation" (there's no point pointing worried parents to the page for "mutant" at the top of the article for "mutation"). Variant of uncertain significance makes clear enough (I think) the relationship between mutation and variant in its lead. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrt Klbrain citing WP:UNCENSORED, this policy is rarely cited appropriately. The policy links to the guideline Wikipedia:Offensive material and specifically WP:GRATUITOUS is relevant: Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.. Editors should always take care not to cause gratuitous offence, and consider (as the OP did) whether alternative language is desirable, suitable, etc. On the article talk page, a standards proposal was cited and to me is evidence of academic writers trying to use language that avoids prejudice or preconceived ideas of what words mean (even if they do not). Readers will bring ideas of "normal" vs" not normal" when we use a word like "mutant", which for some article topics could be a problem. -- Colin°^Talk 13:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point Colin. You made me think. I call viruses mutants often as in temperature sensitive mutant. But I would not dream of using the word to describe anything much larger than a fruit fly. Graham Beards (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

To return, therefore, to mutation versus variant. Mutation has as precise and well-understood meaning in genetic, for which which variant is not an appropriate replacement. Therefore, omitting mutation would make make many articles less informative and accurate. Klbrain (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This might be something that needs to be solved with good writing. We should always use the word correctly (and we probably don't, in some articles), and it may need an explanation. We don't want readers to be thinking about fictional superhero mutations, and some (most?) of our readers will know more about comic books than about genetics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus templates

There are several templates about the 2019 novel coronavirus that pull specific data from early papers on the outbreak. Many of these seem on thin grounds with respect to WP:MEDRS. Input would be useful. See:

• Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Treatments given
• Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data/Symptoms
• Template:Coronavirus data/Patients characteristics Bondegezou (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

For example, consider how that first template is used at 2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease#Treatment_research. Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS at Race and intelligence

Does Race and intelligence require MEDRS sourcing? I raised this concern at AfD assuming that it fell under the general topic area, but there's been some pushback. –dlthewave ☎ 21:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

best to read [1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm familiar with the policy. Just trying to clarify whether claims of a genetic connection between race and intelligence are considered biomedical information. –dlthewave ☎ 02:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think of biomedical information as knowledge derived from clinical trials / prospective studies / epidemiological and laboratory-based studies etc. that study treatments, causes, and courses of diseases. So I'd think not. That said, we'd want any scientifically-based article to be using the highest-quality scientific information. Biosthmors (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, dlthewave, for what it's worth, after a quick scan of the article, it does appear to be more of a sociology-, culture-, and history-based article. This can occur with scientific concepts. The article title of societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, for example, makes the intent of that article explicit. Right now I'd argue there's tension between what one might think is the focus of the article (I went to the article just wanting to see the current scientific consensus) with what is the actual focus. A more accurate title would be something like Societal, cultural, and historical aspects of the race and intelligence debate, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The current scientific consensus is that "race" is a social construct. "Race" is not science. Any article about race is perforce about societal, cultural and historical aspects. Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It's true that race is a social construct, a label imposed by one social group by another. However, once you start hypothesising about the traits that you believe are associated with a racial group, you move into the territory of phenotypes and inevitably into the field of genetics, as the article Race and genetics discusses quite cogently. That is science, and not only that, but medicine as well. There is no doubt that the sort of fringe theories under discussion at the article nominated for deletion require MEDRS sourcing every time they allude to a connection between a trait such as intelligence and a racial group. There's no way that primary sourcing is good enough to support any such inferences. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Genetics, science, sure, fairly obvious. What makes it medicine as well? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Genetics has been defined as "a branch of biology that deals with the heredity and variation of organisms" (Merriam-Webster). Our guidance at WP:MEDRS requires that "all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." It seems inconceivable to me that anyone would dispute that hypotheses concerning a particular supposed link between genetics and an organism's traits are claims of "biomedical information". --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

My question was intended to elicit information. Unfortunately your response has not provided what I was looking for. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Because not all traits have any "medical" aspect? For example, eye color is determined by genes, and eye color is a lot more complicated than brown/green/blue. Some people have a dark blue ring around the iris, for example. I get the "bio" part of that, but where's the "medical" part? Having that trait has no association with any health condition. I conclude therefore that it's not a "biomedical" subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So by your reasoning, it would be acceptable to use primary sources to source a claim about a link between a particular phenotype and race – unless that phenotype could be shown to have health implications, when secondary sources would be required? I just want to be certain of the route you're going down. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Where does WhatamIdoing make this assertion? Alternatively, since you punctuate this as a question, which statements by WAID lead you to this tentative conclusion? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what RexxS stated, human intelligence does fall under the topic of neuroscience, which is why the talk page for the Human intelligence article is tagged with WP:WikiProject Neuroscience. WikiProject Neuroscience is one of WP:Med's related projects, and we (those who are familiar with WP:MEDRS and adhere to it) do use use WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for neuroscience topics. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

So I see. I see also that it is tagged as falling under the topics of psychology, cognitive science and anthropology. It could also be tagged under education, evolution and various other things. A statement of biomedical information should fall under WP:MEDRS, not the whole content of an article if it just happens to contain some biomedical claims. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about different things, so let's back up and try for some factual statements. Does anyone disagree with any of these?

1. WP:NOT says that "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources". The word all in this sentence means all, as in "every single one, without exception, regardless of whether you're writing about a professor or a film or a controversial subject".
2. WP:V says that "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This, too, is "must", as in RFC 2119, an absolute requirement.
3. WP:NOR says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." This, again, is the standard for every single article, without exception. No article should be based primarily on primary sources.
4. WP:MEDRS applies to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. Specifically, it applies to biomedical information in any article, regardless of whether the main subject of the article is biomedical in nature, and regardless of whether that article happens to be of interest to any given group of Wikipedia editors.

Assuming we agree upon these statements, then I think I can answer the questions above and forestall some others:

• I believe that most of the content (e.g., at least a physical majority of readable prose) in all articles, including this one, should come from, and be cited to, secondary sources.
• I believe that most of the content in all articles, including this one, should come from, and be cited to, independent sources. (Remember that WP:Secondary does not mean independent.)
• I believe that all content about controversial subjects, including this one, should get an WP:EXCEPTIONAL level of sourcing. This means that I want to see not just more than the average number of citations per sentence, but also a higher proportion of secondary sources than usual, near-exclusive use of independent sources, and an even higher quality of sources than usual (e.g., more scholarly books published by academics, and fewer news articles).
• I believe that only a fraction of the content in this article is biomedical information, and that therefore only a fraction of the content in this article requires MEDRS-style sourcing. Some biomedical information is found, for example, in the Race and intelligence#Health and nutrition section, but not in most of the others.
  • There is a difference between "involves biology" and "is biomedical". Involving biology is a necessary but not sufficient factor for MEDRS to apply.
  • There is also a difference between "is heritable" and "is genetic".
  • Hint: If you think "doesn't require MEDRS" is a code phrase for "any old primary is okay with her", then you did not read what I have written (here, or any of the other many times over the last many years). If, on the other hand, you think "Oh, noes, she thinks we shouldn't have so many articles about people and businesses and products, because I can't source half an encyclopedia article about some of them to anything except their employers' (or manufacturers') websites!", then well, you're probably right about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a SARS partner/s...

There are several SARS-related articles on Wikipedia but few are linked to the subject or to each other - or if they are I haven't found the page/list/keyword/whatever that would correlate them. Is anyone interested in helping link/organize/disambiguate or create a list? Or knows how to go about it? Worthwhile in itself, it might form the basis for creating a Coronavirus outbreak overview.

Help or suggestions would be highly appreciated! Cheers! Shir-El too 11:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Shir-El too, this list isn't complete, but it will give you almost 400 articles that mention SARS by name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion; it may help track down medically oriented articles. Cheers! Shir-El too 19:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating a navbox might be a good idea, depending on how many articles there are. I'd be happy to help with that.SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm 'technically challenged' (read 'ignorant') when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts and appreciate whatever you have in mind. Some articles are * Timeline of the SARS outbreak, * Jiang Yanyong, and * Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus. Many Thanks, Shir-El too 19:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I created a basic navbox at Template:SARS using the articles in the relevant category. I'm sure there are other articles that can be added. Take a look and see what you think... I left The SARS Network out of the navbox because I'm not really sure what to think of that article. It looks like original research or a WP:COATRACK for someone's pet theory to me. Maybe someone here knows more about it? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful! Now how is it implemented and how do I add articles to the list when found? Also, some subjects have a sidebar at the top (Zoroastrianism) to give quick reference. Would this be too hard or time consuming to create? Cheers! Shir-El too 07:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you've figured out how to add articles. :) You can add the navbox to articles by placing {{SARS}} at the bottom of the page. I'm not too familiar with sidebars... I generally see them used for topics with a very large number of related articles and I'm not sure that this qualifies, but I'll look through the query posted above later and see what I can add. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes: copy-paste I can do. ;) You did a wonderful job already and I'm very appreciative. The reason I asked about sidebars is because they'll be needed sooner or later; this is the third or fourth Corona-virus outbreak in the last two decades. BTW I glanced through "The SARS Network" and agree with your evaluation. And would it be possible to put "Plague City: SARS in Toronto" under something like "In the media"? Meanwhile I've been editing the Timeline. Will start adding the navbox tomorrow. Many Thanks! Shir-El too 19:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC) PS Do you like jokes?

I've added an "in culture" section. A sidebar for coronavirus outbreaks in general is a good idea although I wouldn't know where to get started with integrating all the information. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

And I do like jokes. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Congrats! And nice job...

This project is getting some nice airplay this morning in the UK, in a piece about the coronavirus articles in the UK version of WIRED. Well done! MeegsC (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• great work!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you for the link! This is a great way to refute Wiki-detractors! Cheers! Shir-El too 19:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for the link. But please note this project has not contributed significantly to any of the coronavirus articles.Graham Beards (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Whispyhistory wrote a large part of the outbreak article. They list themselves as part of this project on their user page. They raised the discussion on this page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_131#2019–20_China_pneumonia_outbreak. A number of others have contributed to lesser degrees. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you @Doc James: and others. The whole thing went viral, and its not easy to keep up with it. It's amazing how the maps, diagrams and tables have come out. Thank you @Ozzie10aaaa: for that interesting link. @Graham Beards:...which other coronavirus article need attention? Whispyhistory (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
      • "The whole thing went viral" *sigh*
      • Anyway, thank you for your contributions, Whispy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @Whispyhistory: I think they all do: SpicyMilkBoy created a 'navbox' for SARS to link the separate articles I'm trying to find and include, and I think there should be an overall Corona virus outbreaks sidebar to help navigate between them. I'm not tech savvy enough to do it. Can you, or know someone who would like to? Cheers! Shir-El too 17:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
          • @Shir-El too:..sorry, I can't help with sidebars, but will add some of the articles to my watch list and edit where I can. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove gender bias from WP:MEDMOS

Dear colleagues,

it has come to my attention from a recent study that there is still a long way to go to fix gender bias in Wikipedia's health information.

One of the important aspects is that WP:MEDMOS discourages, or does not mention, the potential psychological or emotional impact of certain medical conditions. We likely treat this too much from a narrow, medical perspective whereas readers on certain topics (as was mentioned in this recent study, e.g. abortion, menopause, vaginal dryness, but also cancer etc.) are likely interested in emotional and psychological impact too.

I will open an RfC at the talk page: here. I propose to treat this of course like any other aspect according to standard policies such as reliable sources, but I'm sure that for many of these aspects there is a wealth of research on the personal, emotional and psychological impact of diseases.

I would value your input on this important discussion (call cross-posted at WP:Women's Health).

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Copied to the main discussion

User:JenOttawa and I have looked at women's health versus men's health and we found based on a number of markers women's health coverage is better. Of course covering emotional / psychological impact when good sources are avaliable is perfectly reasonable. Would either go under signs and symptoms or prognosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC) This is based on a count of the total number of women's health articles (like cervical cancer and contraceptives), and not based on content, like whether Cardiovascular disease mentions pregnancy at all (it doesn't), or whether the differences between males and females in terms of their pathophysiology, treatment, and other areas are adequately described in Myocardial infarction, right? I don't have a great solution to the problem of presenting men's MI symptoms as the 'normal' ones and women's symptoms being relegated to a Separate but equal section, but surely we can all agree that pregnancy ought to be mentioned more than once on the page, and that other factors such as poverty or being of African or Asian descent should be mentioned at least once in those articles. We can do better than this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing: Go easy! Only "when good sources are available" on the variables of gender, poverty, African-Asian-Latino descent, etc, etc, from the medical profession itself. Up till recently, they haven't. Good Luck! Shir-El too 07:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC) I think the above responses to Steven should have been posted to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#RfC: Adding sections on Psychological and emotional impact of health problems. Would you consider moving them please? -- Colin°Talk 08:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC) @Colin: You're welcome to copy mine there if you think it fits. Besides, the lack of balanced research and reporting in various medical areas does not originate with WP: it has been inherent in the medical profession as a whole for lo these many hundreds - if not thousands - of years. Cheers! Shir-El too 11:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Thanks Shir-El. WhatamIdoing would you consider copying this because I can't? I think the claim that "women's health coverage is better" and the responses, deserves exposure at the RFC page. -- Colin°Talk 21:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for lede

RfC. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hospitalized_cases_in_the_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#Proposal_for_lede QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Our World in Data

User:Fæ has done an initial upload of .svgs. The first section is .tab (the underlying data) and the second section is the .svgs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Our_World_In_Data

Lots pertain to health care. I will likely be adding many to articles as time goes on. The hope is eventually that we can get their data visualizer integrated into the Wikipedia world; however this could take years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

very useful information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Medicine noted in new science paper

• Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao; Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Herrera-Viedma, Enrique; Romero-Frías, Esteban; Lozano, Sergi (10 February 2020). "Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks". PLOS ONE. 15 (2): e0228713. arXiv:2002.04347. Bibcode:2020PLoSO..1528713A. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228713. PMC 7010282. PMID 32040488.

Check figure 6, which shows Cochrane journals as a major part of Wikipedia's citation ecosystem.

Thanks to user:JenOttawa, liaison with Cochrane for doing so much to match Wikipedia editors with Cochrane publications. The collaboration with Cochrane has been among the most interactive and least controversial Wikipedia projects I can recall, and additionally, the content has been a good fit for Wikipedia's needs.

Thanks user:Daniel Mietchen for science journal surveillance and pointing this article out.

I am adding this article to science information on Wikipedia, an article I started after the model of health information on Wikipedia. We still do not have much science critique of Wikipedia. If anyone wants to see a profile of health papers on Wikipedia, check Scholia for "health information on Wikipedia". Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please update the "spread" info...

... on the main Coronavirus page! Per https://meaww.com/coronavirus-wuhan-virus-can-survive-on-inanimate-objects-for-up-to-nine-days-any-surface-patient, the virus can survive on surfaces for 4 to 9 days depending upon temperature and humidity. I can't seem to update the info; I've left a message on the main talk page and on Doc James' but he's on holiday and it needs to be checked and updated PDQ. Cheers! Shir-El too 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Had a quick look...my interpretation: CDC have it as unclear "if a person can get 2019-nCoV by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes."....The "up to 9 days" being referred to, comes from the research paper published in the Journal of Hospital Infection and is based on a review of research papers on OTHER coronaviruses ...compiled comprehensive findings from 22 studies on coronaviruses and their inactivation for a future textbook..."The aim of the review was to summarize all available data on the persistence of all coronaviruses including emerging SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV as well as veterinary coronaviruses such as transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), mouse hepatitis virus (MHV) and canine coronavirus (CCV) on different types of inanimate surfaces and on the efficacy of commonly used biocidal agents used in surface disinfectants against coronaviruses"...not the new one. The 9 days with SARS of 2002/03 appears to come from this. "The experts assume that the results from the analyses of other coronaviruses are transferable to the novel virus. "Different coronaviruses were analysed, and the results were all similar". You could add to talk page of the virus article and see if anyone can word it appropriately or wait until more is known and an expert comments on it. I hope that helps. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Identity disorders up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 12#Category:Identity disorders. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to split weight loss

Since July there had been a template at the top of the article on weight loss regarding a split proposal: Talk:Weight_loss#Splitting_proposal I removed the template but others might be interested in continuing the conversation there. It is currently listed as a high-importance article for the project. Biosthmors (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is to split it into intentional vs unintentional weight loss. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the split is a good idea. They are very different conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite an important split (intentional and unintentional). Whispyhistory (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please comment there, so that it'll be easy for everyone to take your thoughts into account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

commented ... Whispyhistory (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I posted as well but I have concerns about naming, etc. in case others would like to continue the discussion. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

same here, I too have concerns about naming--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RFD activity

A bunch of redirects to Micropenis and a couple of medicine-related articles are at WP:RFD. Please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There's also a proposal to merge Small penis with Penis (disambiguation) at Talk:Penis (disambiguation). SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation Template Woes

Am I the only one frustrated with citation templates? It seems they almost always include superfluous information, e.g., stating it's an English-language journal or including the ISBN for a journal, and at least one field always needs correction, e.g., the date format is wrong, or authors' first and last names are transposed. ¶ I am not a programmer (far from it!), so I have no idea how difficult it is to create a citation template. I imagine it's not easy. So please don't take this as a diatribe against the hard-working Wikipedians who create templates, which by and large make our work much easier. ¶ This is mainly a reality check for me. I find myself frequently copying an easy-to-produce citation from Google Scholar, PubMed, or Zotero and pasting it into Cite > manual > basic form, which is not a perfect solution because it loses many of the automatic hyperlinks the citation templates provide. But it's much faster than manually typing every author's first and last name and all the other data into Cite > manual > journal. I am open to suggestions. :) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Markworthen: I wouldn't worry too much about superfluous fields. Some wiki-gnome will come along and fix those. For your own use, you might want to try out this tool that generates a citation from a PubMedID, PMCID, etc:

• https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi

and this one for Google books:

• https://reftag.appspot.com/

Hope those are helpful. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I rather like this DOI-based citation generator. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Marielle's magical mw:citoid tool is one of the wonders of this wiki-age, even if it's never going to be perfect. Every time one website's description is fixed, another one rearranges its website. Most uses are from the URL, including for books (e.g., the Google Books URL) and journal articles (e.g., the PubMed URL). You can use some identifiers directly. ISBNs (most journals ought to be giving you an ISSN, not an ISBN) depend upon the WorldCat folks, who seem to have settled on down-casing titles and using French spacing in titles, which is common in libraries but isn't my preference. PMIDs all go through PubMed and are consistent with what we're used to (and we like what we're used to).

(The |language= field is appreciated by translators, and the contents are auto-hidden from readers on enwiki, so I'd ignore that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question @Markworthen:... I needed those answers too. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Really the easiest thing to do is to put a database/identifier url (doi, bibcode, pmid, pmcid, etc...) between <ref></ref> tags and use WP:CE to expand things and clean them up. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Tips and tricks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y'all! Very helpful. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on sources I cited in the Acupuncture article

Acupuncture

Would a couple of you take a look at citations I added to Acupuncture#Specific conditions - scroll down to the "Sleep" subsection. Please let me know if any of the journals I cited are not reliable sources. I can answer that question with regard to psychology journals but there are so many medical journals sometimes can't separate the wheat from the chaff. ;-) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

they(citations) seem ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie! If there one or two that are iffy, I'm sure someone will eventually notice.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Identity disorders and Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 5#Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders. This is the result of an editor having tried to remove Category:Identity disorders and Category:Sexual and gender identity disorders from the Gender dysphoria article. I reverted, stating, "It should still be there as a matter of helping readers find this topic. The term [gender identity disorder] is still prominent as a historical name and redirects here. It's mentioned and bolded per WP:Alternative title. We might need to consider renaming the category." I also noted that the ICD-11 will not come into effect until 2022. As for the ICD-10, editors can refer to this section of the Gender dysphoria article. Later, Crossroads also reverted removal of the categories. As seen here, I then took the time to comment, "Wikipedia:CATV states 'should generally be uncontroversial.' 'Generally' (as in not always). We can't stop the fact that some categories will be controversial. And there is the fact that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders still has the title that it does and is defined the way it's defined in sources."

By mentioning the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders title, I was stating that gender dysphoria is still in a manual about disorders and is still considered a medical condition. Regardless of the DSM-5 renaming the condition to remove the word disorder to reduce stigma, the condition still technically falls under the definition of a mental disorder or psychiatric disorder (if one prefers the latter term) because of the distress involved. Also see the "Definition" section of the Mental disorder article. What other medical categorization do we have for it? We have Category:Transgender and medicine and Category:Psychiatric diagnosis. It's in those categories as well. Is it sufficient to just have them in those categories? Simply calling it a "condition" or "medical condition" is vague. A proposal to split "Sexual disorder" and "Gender identity disorder" might be considered sound. After all, we already have Category:Sexual disorders. But I question letting Category:Gender identity stand in place of Category:Identity disorders and Category:Gender identity disorders. I know that "Category:Gender identity disorders" doesn't exist. Also, the Gender dysphoria article is already in Category:Gender identity. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"... ICD-11 will not come into effect until 2022." - WHO is not consistent about the ICD-11 "effective date". For example, the ICD-11 Implementation or Transition Guide (p. 1) states, "ICD11 is now available for implementation, following its adoption at the World Health Assembly on 25 May 2019...." In addition, even if we assume that ICD-11 "comes into effect" on 1 Jan 2022, that fact does not make ICD-11 content meaningless until then.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Never stated or implied that it is meaningless. We, however, shouldn't be putting the cart before the horse. Is WP:Med updating all of its medical articles to the ICD-11 when the ICD-11 has been stated to not come into effect until 2022? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

People can't math

(But we still need to put numbers in articles.)

User:Colin recommended this book:

Spiegelhalter, D. J. (3 September 2019). The Art of Statistics: How to Learn from Data (First US ed.). New York. ISBN 978-1-5416-1851-0. OCLC 1112668483.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

to me a little while ago, and I have borrowed it from the library. I haven't gotten very far, but so far, I like it.

In chapter one, Spiegelhalter talks about data presentation. Cancer outcomes in the UK are presented in terms of survival (50% live!). Cancer outcomes in the US are presented in terms of mortality (50% die!). Both are correct, and math adept folks will recognize that it's exactly the same.

But it's not quite the same once you leave the world of mathematics. People feel more optimistic when they're told the survival percentage than the mortality percentage. And they feel worse if you tell them that more than 56 million people died in 2015 (so many people died!), than if you tell them that 0.9% of the world's population did (why, almost nobody died!).

Just mimicking a chosen source's framing isn't "being neutral". It can also be abdicating responsibility for tone, and therefore for the neutrality of the Wikipedia article. I don't think that's our best option. Additionally, with the major stats coming from sources that have defined, for their own (sometimes political) reasons, a particular style used consistently, the word usage there does not necessarily reflect anything more meaningful than the geographic location of the author or publisher.

I remember suggesting once that some people are so bad at basic arithmetic that we should consider writing both sides of the equation for them: "60% of people with this cancer will survive at least five years, and 40% will die within five years", or "60% of people will die, and 40% will survive". Having read this, I'm now thinking that we should, at a minimum, write whichever side is larger: "60% of people will survive" or "60% of people will die", but specifically not just the minority outcome. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am open to logical persuasion, but my first thought was that it would depend on what we were talking about. A success rate might be more appropriate when discussing a treatment, and a death rate might be more suitable for a disease. I accept that there are people out there who do not understand what percentage means. I have seen in real life a group of people trying to explain to a person the 0.2 and 20% are the same thing, without success, and two of them were professionals in adult education. My take from that is that there will always be people who don't get it. The other problem is that a some people do not get that a 60% chance of survival does not mean that you are going to be one of the 60% just because it is the bigger number, or that the published statistics often do not mention fairly important demographic conditions, and that risk can vary a lot depending on who you are. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The scary one was the paper that reported on giving qualified, practicing, doctors similar tests. About 5 years ago. Some did well, but eeek! Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure writing the larger number is the algorithm to use. Sure if you had a cure that worked 95% of the time, that sounds wonderful. If we compared your drug's 95% cure rate with my drug's 95% failure rate, people might be confused and better to compare 95% with 5%. Peter makes a good point about treatment vs disease. For disease prevalence, morbidity or mortality it is probably better to use the rate of occurrence. It would seem odd to say that 98.% of people won't get X in their lifetime, without good reason for wanting to put it like that.

How does using absolute numbers compare with percentages. Is it better to say 6 out of every 10 patients with X will survive 5 years, than to say 60% of patients? I have a feeling people can understand absolute number better than percentages, decimal fractions, ratios and odds. It works even better when we are discussing the change in risk, such as 6 people out of 10,000 will get X but if they drink Y regularly then the risk rises to 7 out of 10,000 people. IIRC the book also discusses presenting absolute risk vs relative risk (see this article for example). -- Colin°^Talk 12:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I learned in a clinical genetics lecture that "people are gamblers, not accountants", meaning that people interpret 6 out of 10 better than 60%.

The same lecturer said clinical geneticists should always give both sides in the manner WAID suggests. Apparently it's normal for a conversation to go "A woman of your age has a 1 in 20 chance of giving birth to a child with a significant disorder" — *GASP!* — "and a 19 in 20 chance of giving birth to a healthy child" — *Oh, whew!* What this means for Wikipedia, I'm not sure. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 21:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the "6 out of every 10 patients" is common. I've sometimes wished for a template or something that would show those numbers in picture form. Imagine it assembling 10 stick-figure people, color-coded to represent some situation, something vaguely like this:

Three out of five people with scaryitis will survive.

It would need multiple colors, so you could show things like "Will survive, will survive with treatment, will die even with excellent treatment". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if one's reaction to numbers depends on whether you are a glass-half-full sort of person or a glass-half-empty:-) -- Colin°^Talk 09:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There's been discussion in the scientific literature about the best way to do this. Having all the affected people at one end is misleading and it has been suggested that you should randomly scatter affected cases throughout the non-affected cases. The choice of stick-figure icon is also an issue. Better that it's a gender neutral one unless there's a particular reason otherwise. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

More coronavirus

There's a lot of eager editors adding the latest news of each experimental treatment of Covid-19. Some help reining in edits to conform to MEDRS would be useful. See Talk:2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease#Management_content_dispute for the latest example. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

have watchlisted--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

we are discussing this proposal right now at:

* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

• Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
• If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
  • Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
  • Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
    • Wikipedia:WIkiProject Town Hall,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulletin Board,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Water Cooler
  • Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
    • Wikipedia:Town Hall or
    • Wikipedia:Water Cooler
  • Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
  • Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Town Hall

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

interesting idea(s), thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with MEDRS-related decisions

I'm developing a script (see below) designed to highlight blacklisted/deprecated/generally unreliable/predatory/questionable sources in citations and elsewhere. Amongst other things is the need to highlight possible-dodgy-but-not-garanteed-awful citations. Note that this isn't a script to remove anything, simply to highlight potential issues. For instance, arxiv/biorxiv/etc. preprints, links to ResearchGate/Academia.edu, and so on, which will often by just fine, but also sometimes contains predatory publications, preprints, self-published nonsense, and the like. That part is working pretty well.

However there's another part which is more grey area, and it's sources that will often fail WP:MEDRS, but which might be otherwise be acceptable for more routine information. Typical examples of this grey area would be Frontiers Media and MDPI publications. Currently, on WP:CITEWATCH, there's a couple of venues that have been listed on Beall's list, but which aren't OMICS Publishing Group-levels of garbage. Those include publications that Beall removed from his list, and those that probably fit the 'questionable' more than the 'predatory' label. Those include

• MDPI
• Frontiers Media
• Hindawi Publishing Corporation
• Medknow Publications
• Bentham Science Publishers (or rather Bentham Open, which my script cannot distinguish from non-open Bentham)
• Dove Medical Press
• Baishideng Publishing Group
• Frontiers in Bioscience

So my question is, should all of those be flagged as sources that should be evaluated against WP:MEDRS? Or should I omit a couple of the above? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I welcome this kind of innovation and think that WikiProject Medicine participants have had many discussions in this space over the years. You have competency to make the tools and I want you to keep doing that. I appreciate that you have compiled a first list of journals to flag. Now that you have a model for how technical tool development meets social decisions, I think it should be the place of WikiProject Medicine to take this list out of your control and maintain it elsewhere, probably on its own Wikipedia page, and probably integrated with other existing services to evaluate the reliability of sources. There are multiple wikiprojects which would be interested in maintaining the list.

Jeffrey Beall compiled such a list of unreliable journals but when a hundred thousand people were watching, he took it down without comment. Everyone knows that the takedown meant that a corporation put legal pressure on him as an individual for producing a journal evaluation system which reported their publication as unreliable. Wikipedia has a precedent of identifying some journals as having quality standards below the level of acceptability in Wikipedia. We also know that by identifying journals as being of unacceptably low quality, we come into conflict with the business model and revenue stream of the corporation publishing the journal. I think we should take a clue from Jeffrey Beall's experience and keep a Wikipedia list of low-quality publications in its own place, under crowdsourced maintenance, and use the public and transparent Wikipedia editorial process to place and keep publications on the list. Whereas Beall somehow got in the position of having to talk to publishers and others in backchannels to defend his decision to list them as unreliable, in Wikipedia, we have the option to commit only to have public conversation about reliability judgments. By being open and transparent, our process should establish consensus and create records of evidence and leave no option for corporations to negotiate with fear tactics or to use money to gain non-objective privileges.

To do this, I think the next step would be to have a stand-alone list of sources on some page, then curate that list like we do with any list. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're certainly free to fork the script, however, I'd much rather have a single script reflect what WP:MED feels like reflects how those publishers line up against WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: You already split this off yourself! This is great!

• The Wikipedia SourceWatch, 31 March 2019
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 <--- time to move to be a stand-alone space, or at least to not be a subproject of a subproject?

What a meeting of technology, community, and media! Can you think of a way to better match WikiProject Medicine with that list system you have there? Can WikiProject Medicine review journals in that system? Do you still like that page? It seems never to have been formally presented as a product ready for use. Is it, and how does SourceWatch connect to this what you are describing? Is it CITEWATCH, SOURCEWATCH, or what is this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're asking here. If you've read the Signpost article, then you know what the WP:CITEWATCH is (WP:SOURCEWATCH is an old name for it). Both WP:UPSD and WP:CITEWATCH are looking for similar things, dodgy citations. WP:UPSD is something that you can use as you read and edit articles, WP:CITEWATCH is slower (updated twice monthly) and more centralized which can be used to actively find problems. As far as reviewing anything, everything's open. As can be seen on both pages, WT:CITEWATCH and WT:UPSD are the places to discuss and review things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to start small, and therefore to omit all of the possibly-okay options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Pretty easy to restrict this to MDPI/Frontiers for now if that's the preference here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I keep hearing that some of the Frontiers' journals are okay, and others aren't. So why include them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CITEWATCH#Frontiers Media for the short of it. They're hit-and-miss, have very lax standards, and have sacked editors for being too rigourous. I've yet to see a Frontiers-backed claim survive a WP:MEDRS challenge. But all the script does is simply highlight those in yellow to indicate it's a marginal source that may or may not comply with WP:MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Frontiers is hit-and-miss according to reliable sources, so it shouldn't be included in a list of definitely bad things. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not a list of definitely bad things. It's a list of potentially bad things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's unhelpful to mix definitely bad with possibly bad. Bondegezou (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything listed at WP:RSPSOURCES is possibly bad. Twitter is generally unreliable. That doesn't mean Twitter can't be cited. Context matters. It's no different here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease to be moved to COVID-19. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

XX male syndrome article -- female genotype

XX male syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some back and forth going on between Natureium and Maneesh over this -- whether or not to use the "female genotype" terminology. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Article nomination of Addison's Disease

An editor, User:Dino245, has nominated Addison's Disease, which is within the scope of this Wikiproject, for GA status. However, Dino has been blocked indefinitely. Would any of the editors in this project be interested in adopting the review? Otherwise, the nomination might have to be removed, since the nominator isn't around to reply to review comments anymore. Hog Farm (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

logic dictates the editors who contributed to the article in question[2] per their overall contributions should be the one(s) to take article to GA...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The nominator is a blocked troll whose only edits to the article were to edit war over an image, and at a glance the article contains a fair amount of unsourced and outdated material. I think it would be best to just remove the nomination. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination tag removed, I'd been directed to take it here at the WP:GAN talk page. Hog Farm (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

About the different versions of Template:Shock_types

There are 2 versions of Template:Shock_types. user:Opaque nociceptive neurons and I have different ideas about the preferred version. I would like to know your opinion for this.

• Version 1: The Underlying causes of each Shock types are listed. It is the current version and the version before 20 July 2019‎. (That version was built from Exert yourself). user:Opaque nociceptive neurons prefers this version because it "was comprehensive."

• Version 2: The Underlying causes of each Shock types are NOT listed. It is the version between 30 July 2019‎ and 15 February 2020. I prefer this version because the underlying cause will be described in the article.

--Wolfch (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Navigation pane allows people to see things at a glance. Also, for the sake of people's time, I have reported the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Harassment.--Opaque nociceptive neurons (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• • Opaque nociceptive neurons is a sockpuppet and is banned.The template is restored to Version 2.--Wolfch (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria article discussion

Please see Talk:Gender dysphoria beginning with Let's move away from U.S.-centric articles (DSM-5 vs. ICD-11) for the debate.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

always useful in any talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed, as I learned again via some uncomfortable introspection—although the end result was good. ;o) I wrote a bit about my experience: "I was becoming grumpy and thinking of throwing up my hands in disgust and quitting Wikipedia. Fortunately, I recognized that these feelings and thoughts were probably a sign that something had gone awry with me. I therefore went on a reading spree, consulting Wikipedia essays and other articles that I thought might help me work through this grump-fest. (continued ...)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Merkel-cell carcinoma article

Merkel-cell carcinoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP is removing content there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Message left on talk page. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Project Grant Proposal on *Disinformation*

I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study *disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.

Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.

Meta:Grants:Project/Misinformation_And_Its_Discontents:_Narrative_Recommendations_on_Wikipedia's_Vulnerabilities_and_Resilience

Cheers! -Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

seems like a good proposal, encourage others to endorse--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. 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

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

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

The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. 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} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

installed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Installed. Appreciate it! --Recap&perforate (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The disaster that is Medical simulation

This article has some massive problems, being composed jointly of what is basically an essay, advertising space, and a very small amount of genuinely encyclopedic information. Anyone feel like cleaning it up? I do not feel comfortable fixing it beyond the basic cleanup I did a few months ago. --—moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've seen a few news articles related to this in the last year, and it might be possible to do some decent work. I think the first step is probably finding the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Promoting Request for Comment

COVID-19 Outbreak World Map

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

For the coronavirus outbreak, should we utilize the graph that shows "cases deaths and recoveries", the "case fatality rate" in a graph, both, or none, or an "epidemic curve" per WP:MEDRS WP:OR and WP:CALC --Almaty (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• comment-(2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has very heavy traffic) editors might want to look at several other important discussions going on at that article as well and participate, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting evidence: does biological half-life of medication varies with the route of administration?

1. "Drug Half-life Explained: Calculator, Variables & Examples". Drugs.com. 2019-03-07. Retrieved 2020-02-20. Drug-Specific Variables That May Affect Half-Life: How the drug is administered (half-life may be different with IV administration, compared to intranasal or oral administration)
2. "Pharmacokinetics 2 - Absorption" on YouTube: It's important to know the half-life of a drug is the same regardless of the route of administration. This is because the half-life is a property of a drug, not a route.

Which source is correct?

Thanks!

--Recap&perforate (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't found a good source (and neither of these are good sources).

I wonder if it might depend upon how it's eliminated. I can imagine a short half-life, eliminated via excretion through the kidneys, being different if it's PO or IM vs IV, because the drug in the IV case can go straight out the kidneys, but in the oral or IM versions has to first get absorbed into the bloodstream. I wouldn't expect this to be as significant a factor if the liver is involved (because in that case, availability of enzymes is more likely to be the rate-limiting factor). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Depends a lot upon how a drug is distributed, metabolized, and eliminated, but if half-life does differ by RoA for a drug, it will also have different half-lives in different fluid compartments (e.g., plasma vs cerebrospinal fluid). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Recap&perforate: I can point you to a good example, with MEDRS sourcing, that demonstrates that the YouTube video is talking complete bollocks. Our own article has a section Biological half-life #Peripheral half-life which notes that oxytocin has a half-life of about three minutes when administered intravenously, but a half-life of between two and four hours when administered intranasally, along with five good references. --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's probably a lot of examples of this; e.g., phenethylamine comes to mind too. Also, I feel like we've had this conversation at WT:PHARM before. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the information but I haven't found it. Would you please give more hints? Thank you! --Recap&perforate (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you all for the discussion! I just found some references as follows and I still feel confused as of now.

1. Foye, William (2008). Foye's principles of medicinal chemistry. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 233. ISBN 978-0-7817-6879-5. OCLC 145942325. The elimination half life is a pharmcokinetic property of a drug and it is independent of the size of the administered dose when the administered drug exhibits characteristics of a first order process.
2. Shaw, Leslie (2001). The clinical toxicology laboratory : contemporary practice of poisoning evaluation. Washington, DC: AACC Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-890883-53-9. OCLC 47049942. PHARMACOKINETICS Absorption Cocaine may be administered intranasally (IN), by smoking (SM), intravenously (i.v.), and orally (PO).
3. Levine, Barry (2003). Principles of forensic toxicology. Washington, DC: AACC Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-1-890883-87-4. OCLC 52166155. Elimination Cocaine follows first-order elimination after IV and SM administration using both one- and two-compartment models. For both routes, the average half-life for cocaine, based on the literature, is about 60 min... indicating that the elimination rate of a drug is proportional to plasma concentration. After a single dose of cocaine, 64-69% of a dose of cocaine was recovered in urine within 3 days regardless of route of administration.
4. Downie, George (2008). Pharmacology and medicines management for nurses. Edinburgh New York: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-7020-3333-9. OCLC 181926459. After administration of a drug, its plasma level rises; the more rapidly the drug is absorbed, the faster its plasma level rises (Fig ... Thus, most of a drug (almost 97%) is eliminated in five half-lives, regardless of the dose or route of administration.
5. Bustad, Leo (1964). Biology of radioiodine : proceedings of the Hanford Symposium on the Biology of Radioiodine : sponsored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and the Hanford Laboratories of the General Electric Company, Richland, Washington, July 17-19. Oxford: Symposium Publications Division, Pergamon Press. p. 137. ISBN 978-1-4832-8276-3. OCLC 890946142. NaI crystal. Rates and per cent of uptake and effective half-life were similar following the oral, intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration. A lower uptake and a longer effective half-life were seen following topical administration.
6. Pasero, Chris (2011). Pain assessment and pharmacologic management. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier/Mosby. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-323-08263-1. OCLC 796812985. Half life is the time it takes for the amount of concentration to be reduced by 50%. After starting a drug or increasing its dose, 4 to 5 half lives are required to approach a steady state level in the blood irrespective of the dose, dosing interval, or route of administration.
7. "ATROPINE- atropine sulfate solution/ drops". DailyMed. 2017-11-20. Retrieved 2020-02-21. Terminal half-life of l-hyoscamine was not affected by route of administration and was calculated to be 3 ± 1.2 hours (intravenous) and 2.5 ± 0.8 hours (topical ophthalmic). Following intravenous administration, the mean (± SD) elimination half-life (t1/2) of atropine was reported to be longer in pediatric subjects under 2 years (6.9 ± 3.3 hours) and in geriatric patients 65 to 75 years (10.0 ± 7.3 hours), compared to in children over 2 years (2.5 ± 1.2 hours) and in adults 16 to 58 years (3.0 ± 0.9 hours). (see 8.4 Pediatric Use).

--Recap&perforate (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Heroin and clindamycin, for example, have multiple routes of administration with identical elimination half-lives. --Recap&perforate (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that the much of the confusion here arises because of the differences in what researchers and clinicians are measuring; for example, whether half-life from the time of administration, post-absorption or post-distribution. Notice that the many of those sources use the concept of terminal half-life (the half-life measured after absorption and distribution, the first two parts of ADME); it is this measurement which is independent of the route of administration. Attempting to measure a half-life earlier runs into the problem that the kinetics don't follow exponential decay, and so the half-life depends on other factors including the dose and route of administration; during this period the half-life isn't constant, so isn't a reliable concept. So, terminal half-life is constant is a relatively safe statement. Klbrain (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Many drugs have identical half-lives regardless of route of administration. Some don't.
• For all drugs, regardless of what the half-life for that route of administration is (minutes? hours? days?), and regardless of what the dose is (a typical dose? a tenth of that? ten times the typical dose?) [but, see the caveat about first-order processes], four or five half-lives gets it out of your body.
• Using the oxytocin example, this means that it's out of your body in 15 minutes if it was delivered via IV (5 × the three-minute half life for IV), in 10 to 20 hours if was delivered intranasally (5 × the 2–4 hour half liife for IN). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Halotherapy article needs MEDRS review

• Halotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I did some cleanup on this short article, but I'd like others' to take a look at the claims and emphasis, especially the following paragraph: --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Salt's well known drying effect may also help to clean up bronchial secretions. Beyond short-term relief associated with dry environment for those trying to excrete sputum, Norman Edelman of the American Lung Association suspects reported improvement in the health condition of patients might simply be due to the placebo effect.

References

both sources are actually good(per MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Preauricular_sinus_and_cyst conc. Geswein hole

How to proceed? I just read the abstract of the publication.... Remove the reference? (in case of a reply: please answer at my talk of the German Wikipedia....) --Filiusque (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

this is the link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

EMRBots

Would someone be willing to take a look at this article, EMRBots, which I'm presuming is within your purview since it's about electronic medical records. The background section is unsourced, while the next section, academic use has over 35 citations. The image in the lead and the first two references in the lead also happen to be the name of an editor who has extensively edited the article, as shown in the page history . Some of the other references used in the article, are either authored by him, or mention him. His talk page also has a COI notice and concerns about self-promotion. If this isn't the right venue to raise this issue, let me know, and I'll move the discussion elsewhere. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

tagged for COI[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Parental divorce related to autism

Could someone with access please confirm that Factor, Reina S.; Ollendick, Thomas H.; Cooper, Lee D.; Dunsmore, Julie C.; Rea, Hannah M.; Scarpa, Angela (December 2019). "All in the Family: A Systematic Review of the Effect of Caregiver-Administered Autism Spectrum Disorder Interventions on Family Functioning and Relationships". Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 22 (4): 433–457. doi:10.1007/s10567-019-00297-x. ISSN 1573-2827. PMID 31363949. S2CID 198999862. reports that the divorce rate among parents of autistic people is not unusually high? It cites PMID 21590433, but I can't read the review article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing That's not what it says at all. "Although debated (Freedman et al. 2012), some studies indicate that the divorce rate for parents of children with ASD is twice as high as the rate for parents of [typically developing] children (Hartley et al. 2011)." Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps Hartley is the source of the oft-repeated but never-cited claim that 80% of parents with autistic children get divorced (with people assuming divorce rate, which is around 40% in the US, is the actual chance of a divorce, which it isn't; it's the ratio of all marriages registered to all divorces granted in a given time period). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The Hartley et al. 2010 primary paper has Parents of children with an ASD had a higher rate of divorce than the comparison group (23.5% vs. 13.8%). Its from a longitudinal study presenting results from 391 families, baseline data in 1994-1996, then followup in 2004-2006. So, the 40% to 80% extrapolation would be a very long bow to draw. Klbrain (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Especially given that 23.5% is only a 70% increase above 13.8%, hardly "twice as high". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Could we turn this into a statement about parental divorce? There's a paragraph at Autism that begins "Parents of children with ASD have higher levels of stress", and I think it would fit into this.

I don't suppose that we know the "real" answer, because there have been so few studies, and they're limited. You would have to take into account the chance of divorce among adults with autism (because many parents of autistic children are on the autism spectrum themselves), which might not be the same as the chance of divorce for a neurotypical couple, or for a childless couple, but I'd like to have a suitable statement in the article, e.g., "Studies have produced conflicting results, but parents of autistic children in the US probably have a somewhat higher chance of getting divorced than parents of neurotypical children." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd reduce the equivocation and qualifiers; all knowledge is imperfect, and so all statements on Wikipedia are subject to revision/uncertainty and should be read in that manner without the need for such qualifiers. I'd delete probably and somewhat, but (as you suggest), not include a number for that increase; include the relevant reference(s), of course. Klbrain (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse DORA?

I saw in Mcbrarian's post (above) mention of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. On the Signers page, I noticed that Wikimedia Italia and Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. have endorsed DORA, but no other WikiMedia entities. Does anyone know if there are discussions about other Wikimedia entities signing the Declaration?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any such discussions.

Some folks here have a long history of rejecting sources because of the journal's WP:Impact factor, and more recently, we're seeing editors remove content and sources because other journals handled by the same publishing house have attracted criticism. We're not really in a position to cast any stones in this area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Markworthen:@WhatamIdoing:, based on my own understanding of DORA, the goal is not necessarily to cast stones, but to encourage academic institutions to value areas of research output in addition to the traditional model of publishing ones findings. This could be interpreted in a way that allows academic researchers, particularly those pursuing tenure, to list all the outputs of their work rather than just their academic publications. It provides a fuller picture of a researcher's contributions to scholarly communication and their broader influence. At this time, whether a researcher spends time updating and improving Wikipedia content that falls within their realm of expertise is not considered in applications for tenure. But with DORA, it may become possible to do such a thing. CIHR, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, just signed DORA in an effort to communicate their understanding that research output is more than just publication and measuring a researcher by their h-index. Wikipedia signing DORA would represent support for the research community and particularly the ivory tower of academia to look beyond traditional models of knowledge dissemination to understand the value of ones contributions to knowledge. Hope this helps! Mcbrarian (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

An apparent deficiency in our medical content: gastrointestinal ulceration

To be more specific, we appear to have no article that covers signs+symptoms/diagnosis/treatment/prognosis/etc. of intestinal ulceration (in any segment of the small intestine past the duodenum) or colonic ulceration (i.e., large intestine and sigmoid colon).

I noticed this because I recently generalized the description of a perforated ulcer, but couldn't find any article or SIA to link which is specific to gastrointestinal ulceration. I remember from reading a paper on colonic ischemias – one cause colonic ulceration – that they account for something around 1 in 1000 of all ER visits. There's other etiologies of colonic ulceration as well (e.g., ulcerative colitis), so shouldn't we have a page that covers ulceration in other segments of the GI tract besides mouth ulcer and peptic ulcer disease (scope: lower esophagus, stomach, duodenum)? NB: intestinal ulcer redirects to peptic ulcer disease (this is a bad redirect; that redirect target only suffices for duodenal ulcer) and colonic ulcer does not exist.

I'm kind of surprised that we don't seem to have article content on colonic ulceration given that perforated ulcers in that segment of the GI tract are surgical emergencies which I suspect carry a relatively high risk of bacterial sepsis compared to perforations (w/ a non-infectious etiology) in other regions of the GI tract due to extremely high microbial concentrations in that segment (e.g., the human colon contains ~1 trillion bacterial cells/ml of luminal content, which is several orders of magnitude higher than microbial concentration on any other internal/external surface of the human body).

Anyone want to take a stab at addressing this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There are only 28 entries in Pubmed with "colonic ulcer" in the title, and only one review, 22 years ago, and that one is about a rare cause. Colonic ulcers definitely occur, are not too rare (I've diagnosed and treated quite a few), there are textbook chapters on the subject, but the sourcing isn't easy. Worth doing, definitely. — soupvector (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Colonic ulcer did a small stub(please expand), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)