Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 139

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 135 ← Archive 137 Archive 138 Archive 139 Archive 140 Archive 141 → Archive 145

Addition of a poster as a reference

I have published a poster titled 'Wikipedia editing by healthcare professionals: Need of time' in year 2018. It can be used as a reference if found appropriate. I think I should not add it as there will be conflict of interest as the poster is presented by me, but if found important, someone else can add it. Thanks in advance. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting, very informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Regulatory compliance for IVD medical devices

I realize this isn’t particularly wiki-related, but I figured I’d reach out anyway since this is relevant to primary/tertiary care physicians, nurses, and technologists.

I started a precision diagnostics company with 4 others; would love to talk about it, but need to file a patent first, and before that I have to wait on the FDA to return written feedback and then teleconference with my team on our device design. Working on getting approval for a CLIA-waived POC rapid diagnostic testing device for virtually all known infectious pathogens (each biofluid entails a unique test) and their unique AMR profiles; it’d be permitted for use in hospitals and primary care clinics that have a CLIA-waiver. Expect the pricing to be ~$14000/device + ~$75/test (less if I can leverage my patents to get the manufacturer to reduce their >100% margin on reagents). Attaining maximal sensitivity+specificity per pathogen is fairly trivial with the hardware/software tech we’re using, but phase 3 is probably going to cost upwards of $100 million. Lol

Anyway, anyone happen to know any expert medical device consultants or current/former employees of the FDA office of IVD? I need an advisory board member with that expertise to whom I can pose an occasional question on regulatory compliance.

I’m not monitoring this page, so please ping/email me if you reply. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Seppi333, it sounds like you would benefit from connecting to a regional biotech networking group, such as https://www.bc-la.org/ or https://biotech.usc.edu/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems like a really good idea. Ty! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: You wouldn't happen to know of any similar ones in San Francisco and Maryland (DC metro area), would you? My team is rather scattered, hehe. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Seppi333, the San Francisco Bay/Silicon Valley area has a lot of groups. You might start by looking at https://sfbn.org/about/ (there's a list of other orgs at the end of the page) or even try Meetup.com to see if you can find a group that's specific to devices. I don't know anything about groups in the DC area, but I would expect there to be multiple options. It's possible that if you find a good group in one city, that the current members could recommend another elsewhere.
I believe there are also a couple of WPMED folks who currently work in the device side of the industry, and they may see your note and have specific recommendations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Clinical guidelines from non-Anglophone countries

I've been working on improving the Complete blood count article recently, and I'd like to incorporate some information about screening and quality control guidelines in non-Anglophone countries, but I've struggled to find sources for this. Wondering if anyone here can dig up some good sources for Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.? There is some more discussion of this on the article talk page. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Spicy, are you hoping to write more sentences such as "The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and US Preventive Services Task Force do not recommend using the CBC for screening in healthy adults who are not pregnant," only for other countries? or something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The former - although any sort of information about ordering practices would be helpful. Spicy (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the status about importing the maps from Our World in Data?

See or edit source data.
Child mortality by year from 1960 until 2017.[1]

I searched the archive and found an earlier discussion from 2017 here and also from October 2019 here. But there must have been further discussions since then. Basically I am looking at the maps on the SDG 3 on the website of SDG Tracker which is part of Our World in Data, see here. Do I have to download them and then upload to Wikimedia Commons or is there already a streamlined process or bot for that? EMsmile (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

[1]per the links you indicated, Doc James, if Im not mistaken would know, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)



References

  1. ^ Roser, Max; Ritchie, Hannah (10 May 2013). "Child & Infant Mortality". Our World in Data. Retrieved 4 October 2019.

Discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Another plea for basic scrutiny of recent changes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Another plea for basic scrutiny of recent changes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This page needs some "watchlist patrollers" – editors who check their watchlists every day and aren't afraid to fix and revert poor content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Yikes - after 5 days the discussion is archived. Now at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_37#Another_plea_for_basic_scrutiny_of_recent_changes. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge: Pigmented villonodular synovitis and Giant-cell tumor of the tendon sheath into new "Tenosynovial giant cell tumor" article

Hi! I'm a COI editor posting on behalf of Daiichi Sankyo to propose that Pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) and Giant-cell tumor of the tendon sheath (GCT-TS) be merged into a new Tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) article, which I've drafted here. The medical consensus is that PVNS and GCT-TS are both variations of TGCT. I've opened a discussion on the PVNS talk page. Thank you in advance for any time/feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for some more eyes at TfD

Hi all, I think I may have slightly overwhelemed interested editors by my list of templates for discussion. Thanks to all for contributing so far. I would like to request some more eyes over the nominated templates. Many have just received one comment and I so I think there is a risk of some issues being missed that I'm not recognising. Also it would speed things along by a month or more for my tidy-up and smaller second batch :). If you want to keep an eye on this you can use our article alerts, which has an automatically updated list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts

Ping to people have contributed - Mdaniels5757, Izno, Trialpears, Jfdwolff, Spicy, Bsherr - thanks, and if I could lean on you for a few more comments that would be appreciated. I have tried to word this neutrally, because I would appreciate comments in either direction, and so I hope this isn't considered canvassing.

If you could please look at the list below and comment on a few (no problems if you are opposing what I've proposed!) that would be wonderful:--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Related category discussions:

  • Will slowly look through them over the next few days. I think the issue is that none of the TfD regulars are medicine editors as well as far as I know. If someone from the WikiProject would like to help out that would be great! --Trialpears (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It just got to be bedtime last night (or rather, about 4 hours past). I did plan to return in the morning. :) --Izno (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Need help

Akathisia needs to be on a few active watchlists. AFAICT this is a 'movement disorder' (the name means "can't sit still") that appears during antipsychotic treatment for delirium, but the Internet seems to think that it's a feeling of abject terror. I'm betting that someone who spends time around ICU patients knows a lot more about this than I do. Just blanking incorrect information would be helpful at this stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Welp, I've had this on my watchlist for a couple of hours now and.. you aren't wrong. I think the entire article needs cleanup but if we are all busy just dealing with the new edits nobody has time to cleanup the article itself. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Advocacy editing. A revert to before the current crop may be a faster route to rebuilding ... too much damage, current mess is not a good starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I will be watching this and am commenting on the talk page. It appears that the WP page overrepresents drug induced akathisia which is just one known cause. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Amousey - I replied to you on the talkpage as well as made a quick fix, but yes, this is the primary problem with this (and many) articles that relate to medical topics that have "conspiracies" around them. There are some people who feel that their doctors/pharmaceutical companies/etc are a big scam whose entire goal is to sell unsafe toxins to you as "drugs", and that "akathisia" is proof of this - they claim that akathisia has no other cause, that it's purely a drug effect, and that the FDA is in on this conspiracy to approve unsafe drugs that "ruin lives". So, of course, that's the only part of the article that's been expanded and sourced well, because those people who did that had no desire/will/belief in the other aspects of it. I think it's actually more common than we think that Wikipedia has unconscious bias in not the material covered, nor the way it's presented, but just "how close we are to completion". As an example, I wouldn't think akathisia could be a good article now or anytime soon, because like you said, it's woefully incomplete in its coverage - because of this historical bias towards covering this part of it by those editing the article. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks User:Berchanhimez. The big Pharma conspiracy theory, ugh... Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Anorexia (symptom) in humans and animals, and finding WP:MEDRS sources

Hi everyone! I apologize if this is a dumb question. I am not a part of this WikiProject (I can honestly say I don't know much about medicine), but I recently added a little bit to Anorexia (symptom) and would like to add more content. The article previously said nothing about anorexia in animals, so I wrote in the lead that it happens to other species and cited some sources. However, I'm having a hard time finding any kind of secondary source covering anorexia/inappetence in dogs or cats. The tools on this project page only get results about people, and WP:Veterinary Medicine doesn't have a similar tool for finding sources and doesn't include the Anorexia (symptom) page anyway.

From what I understand after looking at WP:MEDRS, I can't talk about the causes, treatments, or other health issues caused by anorexia without a reliable source. Currently, I have yet to find a secondary source that discusses the topic, only primary sources and websites with a general overview which I don't think qualify. Also, should I discuss this with WikiProject Veterinary Medicine, even though the page is part of this project? Thanks for your help with my minor issue. TuskDeer (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

yes anorexia (symptom) is going to have much less MEDRS compliant, in contrast to say Anorexia nervosa, however Google books are also available for info on the symptom (and its causes)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Many pages are in multiple projects, I think it's appropriate to ask in veterinary too User:TuskDeer. I found this advanced search] on Google books (anorexia, in books with a title including "Veterinary" gave a number of promising secondary sources. The main issue is to check for which are edited books, which is usually obvious if there is a contents page listing different authors for chapters.Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Pseudosenility"

Pseudosenility is one of my UCSF student editing watchlisted articles. Best I can tell, it is not a thing. It returns three hits in PubMed, TOTAL-- 1958, 1961 and 1973. Most of the sources listed are for pseudodementia or reversible dementia,[2] and a lot of the actual article is about pseudodementia,[3] so I attempted to move the article to pseudodementia. Which already exists. Is there such a thing, or should this article be merged and redirected to pseudodementia, and the students switched over to pseudodementia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Affective feeblemindedness, cataphrenia, pseudosenility, and pseudodementia are all the same thing according to this psychiatric dictionary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Crafting the lead for the Suicide methods article

Suicide methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Help is needed on this matter: Talk:Suicide methods#Summarizing the lead. A permalink for it is here. Obviously, the current lead is too small. But how should we go about expanding it? I could type up something myself, but I am interested in hearing others' thoughts, including on whether we should retain some of Poorya0014's version. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy to contribute to this. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbidol for COVID-19?

Arbidol has been used in cases of COVID-19, mostly in China and Russia. The article has some very problematic sourcing. It could do with some expert review. HLHJ (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've stripped it to a bare statement that research is happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Horseshoe bats

Looking for a second opinion for an FAC: does the content at Horseshoe_bat#As_disease_reservoirs require MEDRS-level sourcing? Is the current sourcing of sufficient quality? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I identified a few phrases that I feel are biomedical claims requiring MEDRS-level sourcing:
  1. humans likely became sick through contact with infected masked palm civets, which were identified as intermediate hosts of the virus. – sourced to Review of Bats and SARS, which is a review of sorts, but not a systematic review.
  2. humans can become ill through exposure to other MRVs – sourced to ISBN 9781119150046 which is published by Wiley, a respectable publisher.
  3. Kyasanur Forest disease is transmitted to humans through the bite of infected ticks, and has a mortality rate of 2–10%. – sourced to pmid:16710839 a review, but not systematic.
The sources are rather old by MEDRS standards and reasonably good secondary sources, if not necessarily the highest quality. As the claims are not exceptional as in WP:REDFLAG, my inclination would be to accept them as sufficient quality, but someone with expertise in infectious diseases (i.e. not me) might disagree with my assessment. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS and Ealdgyth: how about color accessibility on the chart in the Conservation section? I thought information was not to be conveyed by color alone ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, it isn't presenting unique information--I'm rehashing the same numbers in the prose of that section. Enwebb (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Got it ... sorry, was in a hurry, dashing out the door, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else care to look over the MEDRS for this article? I think this is the last point to consider before it passes FAC. Enwebb (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Prostaglandin E2

A group of student editors are making major changes to Prostaglandin E2. I don't work on MED articles, just wanted to mention it so a qualified editor can hopefully screen the rewrites. Schazjmd (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Heads up about new UCSF WikiEd course, there are too many for us to keep up with, might you help out on any? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, my apologies, but I can't tell an acceptable medical resource from a plausible-but-unacceptable source. I know just enough about WP:MEDRS to know to steer clear of any med-related articles (although I add the med project to the talk page on new articles that I see), and I lack any scientific competence that would help me evaluate the changes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

COVID review

I'd like some help reviewing the main Coronavirus disease 2019 article. I've just had a look at the ==Signs and symptoms== section. Most of it was written in March and April. Some of the sources have been updated since then, but the text is staying the same. Does anyone have any really good sources that they would recommend as the foundation of this medicine-focused article? That section used a previous version of https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html and I'd like to have another source or two before trying to check it.

In terms of expansion, there should probably be a section for ==Pregnancy== and ==Children== added, but my goal right now is just to make sure that the basics are present and not unreasonably outdated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

In terms of weight, Mild-Moderate NEJM, for Severe provide high level overviews. JAMA have recently published an in depth review. PainProf (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, the international anesthesia research society (full disclosure I'm a member) provide a curated list of recent papers with a brief review by a scientific advisory board here . PainProf (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:MED design issues

Too many to list, but for a starter, does anyone know how we can get a replacement for User:West.andrew.g/Popular medical pages, or get it updated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. The WMF runs the bot now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
But the andrew west version told us which were protected ... Can the wmf version do that, WhatamIdoing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  1. Identified what is found where in the current scheme (many items are buried within others, with the main modules commented out): [4]
  2. Replaced Andrew West with WMF tally, but there is also text at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Metrics that requires a manual update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. There was a bunch of garbled text at the bottom of the page, linking to older versions but not viewable on at least my browser, so I commented it out. [5]
  4. Removed Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Metrics from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/About (module buried within another module),[6] and re-added the module Metrics back to the main page (it had been commented out). [7]
  5. Added related projects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Related Projects, [8] and removed them from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/About. [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  6. Reordered modules to put active tasks, tools, discussions etc at the top of the page. [10]

Done for now. The main page of WP:MED was devoting a large amount of real estate to off-en.Wikipedia Projects, with links to pages for how you can actually help ON en.Wikipedia obscured ... I've moved those up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino I have added the newsletter to the navigation template so that it now figures on the project page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for doing all the legwork on this. Just starting to look at the WP:MED page now. A small thing: I don't fully understand the syntax, but for some reason, this edit made the word "Templates" partially hide under the words "Popular articles". Does this happen on others' screens or just mine? Ajpolino (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Odd, because on both of my browsers (chrome, safari), that edit solved that very problem-- that before, it was partially hidden. OK, here's the fix. The problem with the Templates section (compared to the others there) is that the code is not using an icon for the template, rather is using nowiki tags to add brackets. If someone could upload an image of the brackets, we could switch it to an icon image, matching the rest of the code, and eliminating the problem. I am working to get the WPMED page back to a place where we can easily access important tools, tasks and alerts without having to scroll through lots of advertising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation bot RFC

A second summer course: They are editing Management of COVID-19 and Essential hypertension

I noticed this new course is working on a COVID-19 article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UMass_Boston/Composition_II_(Summer_2020)

JenOttawa (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a writing class? In that case, EMsmile and Mcbrarian, would you two be able to watch those articles?
I'll ask WP:COVID to be on the lookout, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately I reverted the first edit on Essential hypertension here just now. No sources included. More eyes would be helpful as my time on Wikipedia is limited at the moment due to child care but I will do my best to watch as well. JenOttawa (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a writing class. In which case, it's a pity that they have to have Jen also cleaning up their writing for them! --RexxS (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I have watchlisted the hypertension article, but am not editing COVID (since I think we should delete about 99% of those articles and get them off the mainpage ... NOTNEWS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
We can take the slower approach of fact-tagging probably-verifiable content that's missing sources, but in the end, that was Wikipedia:Biomedical information plus a direct quotation, which puts it inescapably in the WP:MINREF category. An inline citation is necessary, so the only remaining question is whether that citation needs to be added "right now" or "very soon". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow follow-up. Yes I can watch these pages too. Thanks for thinking of me.Mcbrarian (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Cholesterol related articles

There are a number of articles related to cholesterol and heart disease that are very bad. They have a lot of citations of primary studies that are not scientifically relevant, which end up making the articles quite misleading. Two that I found (lipid hypothesis and atherosclerosis) actually mention and cite Gary Taubes, a controversial diet book author who is not a medical researcher. The articles should be instead be based on the many exhaustive secondary reviews from organizations like the AHA and WHO. I think these should be a priority for editing given that heart disease is the leading cause of death. CheerfulOctopode (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome, User:CheerfulOctopode. Thank you for bringing these questions here. That's kind of a complicated subject, because the science is a little fuzzy in spots. I encourage you to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A call for collaboration

Complete blood count and differential

I have been working on Complete blood count recently with the goal of eventually taking it to FAC. It has been reviewed by some WP:MED regulars already, and some non-med editors, but to ensure the article is well prepared I would like to get as many people's eyes on it as possible. I would like to invite anyone reading this post to take a look at the article and edit as you see fit or share yoir thoughts on the talk page, even if you know nothing about the topic... in fact, especially if you know nothing about the topic, as I would like to make sure it is understandable and engaging to a wide audience. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

it is very well done Spicy,I would think FA wont be a problem--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Spicy, just LAUNCH ALREADY ! It's ready ... now we're just nitpicking ... and FAC reviewers will come up with stuff none of us can imagine :) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I really like the photo you made for the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder article

Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Like I noted on the article's talk page, Gaming User (talk · contribs) has made extensive revisions to the article, and I've contacted WP:Med for review. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

will watch--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Watched, relates to Tourette syndrome, so I should be able to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This is EASILY the worst mess I have ever encountered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
(Somehow, I doubt that. We've got a lot of contenders for that position.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate you reviewing this and editing the article, Sandy. When I log on, I am often so busy with all sorts of things and catching up on my watchlist that an article may not get detailed attention from me. I am currently watching the student editing at the Tampon article and have advised the class in two different sections on the talk page. I can do cleanup once they are done. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I am just happy you saved me from tampon!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Acupressure and placebo

While WP:FTN would also suit for this topic, a discussion is taking place at the article's talk page about my interpretation of the placebo effect and my recent edits there. Since this particular point is probably best handled by editors familiar with MEDRS and how trials are performed, I thought this page would be better than FTN. Input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Viral interference

Can somebody knowledgeable in virology please take a look at the viral interference article? There are a lot of different sources all with slightly different takes on this, and I'm finding it hard to integrate them all into the article. Is there a systematic review of the topic somewhere that could be of use for this? -- The Anome (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Paging Graham Beards... WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I have commented on the Talk Page. IMHO the issue is largely due to a speculative and inaccurate newspaper article. Graham Beards (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
In my experience, using newspapers as a source for natural sciences things is often a bad move. Even if they rely on published academic literature, they often add their own errors, misinterpretations and exaggerations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope

Are we supporting all articles about COVID-19, or just the ones (the majority) that have some sort of medical content? I wonder this because of Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the music industry, which I think ought to be renamed to "List of music events cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I've always considered the scope of a WikiProject to be the set of articles that at least one member of the Wikiproject is willing to support. Presumably Dimadick, who added the {{WikiProject Medicine}} template, is a member of this WikiProject and is willing to support the article. If that's not the case, then the template should be removed. --RexxS (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
What RexxS wrote makes good sense to me. You never know when some wacky medical info will be included in a generally non-medicine article. Therefore, if a WP:MED member is willing to monitor an article related to COVID-19, that seems like a good thing, and is consistent with our goal to pay "... specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article ...."  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 00:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"Causes" field in the Suicide article inofbox

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

We need opinions at Talk:Suicide#Causes. A permalink for it is here.

How are we to relay the causes in the infobox? Do we include causes there at all since they are varied and some suspected causes aren't a settled matter? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is to leave that parameter in the infobox blank. There are numerous possible causes, and often the specific "cause" is unknown. We know risk factors, but usually not a specific set of causes. Sundayclose (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Priority of Vaccine hesitancy

Could this article be moved from high to top priority? I am not sure how to check when it was last assessed / assigned a priority. It is currently a B class article with High priority in WikiProject Medicine. I don't know if it makes any difference on WP, but the WHO listed it as one of the top 10 Global health threats for 2019. Given the COVID-19 situation this page would be one I would like to see improved and updated. I don't have the background knowledge to improve it on my own (why people would rather get sick than have a vaccines is a mystery to me). Would adding it to fringe be helpful in encouraging more editors? - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the scheme: Template:Importance scheme. I would hesitate to change a rating based on current events. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I think the WHO view of it as a major topic of international importance gives weight to it being top priority, though it seems other edits likely don't agree. - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Shashank Shah

Is Shashank Shah a notable doctor? The article is clearly a COI creation (the main contributor notes in one edit summary "Also Dr. Shah personally reviewed this Article") and has plenty of perennial WP:PEACOCK issues, , but COI aside, does he meet notability requirements? TJRC (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

TJRC, looking at the claims made in the article, it is possible that this person is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't check very carefully but one of the more basic claims didn't validate. The Indian medical council doesn't list a doctor registered under that name.... Weirdly this is quite normal the WHO estimates 57% of doctors in India don't have a medical license. PainProf (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
While some of the claims seem exaggerated and/or based on sensationalist low-quality sources, he seems to be "notable" in Wikipedia's sense of the term. GermanJoe (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Saeedehosseinian edits

Hello, I noticed that User:Saeedehosseinian is WP:SPA added one reference (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64452-z) to 9 medical articles in random way then being inactive. I removed it from Alzheimer's disease article. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 10:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've left them a note on their talk page, referring them to WP:SELFCITE. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
It's present in seven articles. It's a meta-analysis in a top-rated journal. While the actions look a bit spammy, it looks like a good source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, WAID, it's a fine source. All the more reason to follow SELFCITE and allow other editors to add it to appropriate articles. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
agree w/ RexxS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As RexxS said, that we didn't disagree that it's a fine source, but it was wrong to add it randomly (Spammy-way). Thanks RexxS for left talk page note --Alaa :)..! 23:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Scientific reports should not be considered a top quality source.... it is not selective with regard to quality and only relies on 'scientific correctness' without regard to methodological validity. To be clear that paper actually has some problematic methods, it uses p value of 0.05, but doesn't adjust for FDR, this is not an appropriate method for the experiment - a strong indication of why we rely on secondary sources. In my view, that is not a secondary source as it relies on a questionable bioinformatics methodology to synthesise a new hypothesis and then presents primary data as well (which are q. poorly supported). A secondary source appropriate for basic science experiments would be a review in a top tier journal. Scientific reports doesn't to my knowledge actually publish reviews of that sort. If it were discussed in secondary reports for instance at a high quality review journal such as Annual Reviews, or Nature Reviews in Neuroscience that would be a different matter. This is a strong case for citation spam. PainProf (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Additionally that paper was about microRNAs it had very little to do with AD as a whole and was not relevant to many of those places. PainProf (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed some dubious stuff being cited to Scientific Reports (usually misleadingly passed-off as Nature) in the past. I'd consider it a borderline junk journal, not usable for anything surprising. Alexbrn (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
PainProf, we accept all meta-analyses as secondary sources. "Secondary" does not meant "good".
Alex, as long as the scientific community cites its articles so often that it is the 8th most-cited journal out of more than 100 in its field, we can't ban it. MEDRS stops working when individual editors can veto sources that meet all the usual criteria because they disagree with it. Any individual editor should use their best Wikipedia:Editorial discretion and WP:VOLUNTEER to cite only the sources they believe are good, but we can't extend that discretion to requiring that everybody agree with "me". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
On a Featured article, yes we can. WP:WIAFA requires high quality sources. And THAT people, is why we should be bringing and keeping our articles at FA standard -- so we can keep out junk crap like this. Alzheimer's disease and hippocampus are featured articles; the text being cited by this person was a) already cited, and b) could be updated, but we don't HAVE to use a marginal source like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it should be "banned", but considered a borderline junk journal, not usable for anything surprising. Reliable sources need to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This journal has a reputation more as being an indiscriminate dumping ground, or worse. How we use such suspect sources is a matter of principle, grounded in our core policies. I wonder if it is worth adding something explicit about the use of Mega journals. Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
In this case this is not really a meta-analysis in the terms we would understand. It wouldn't be typical to perform this analysis for that data type in general. Moreover the paper includes basic data so is more accurately described as a primary source. One that is new and has not been described in the literature by other sources yet. The methods are inadequate to answer the question as they rely on HEK (an immortalised kidney cell line) cells to infer a gene regulatory network in neurons. The meta-analysis is flawed because it includes only a small subset of studies and did not extract raw data or perform normalisation. A meta-analysis is generally an appropriate source for a claim of efficacy or effect but it was being used for the claim that the hippocampus is heavily affected by AD, a line that the source did not address, so I replaced that with more appropriate sources. If it was being used for a claim about the gene that was dysregulated it may have been appropriate but I agree the usage looked unjustified and was therefore waslikely spam. Scientific reports only publishes original science to my knowledge and it may be best to check claims supported by one of their papers to include a secondary source of appropriate. To be clear they publish a lot of routine science such as replication efforts too and are not completely junk. Its a place people often send papers that are not novel or maybe can't be adequately finished. PainProf (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Scientifc Reports publishes systematic reviews such as PMID 29311570, and "overviews" of systematic reviews, such as PMID 26669761, which might be used to support a statement that Chinese Herbal Medicine "may be considered as a palliative care option for improving QoL among cancer patients" – which I would class as rather surprising. Alexbrn (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Since quality of life is subjective, variable, and regresses to the mean (i.e., people who aren't actively dying tend to get discharged from the hospital at some point, which event is a 10-point improvement on the usual QoL scale), and since people who seek altmed for cancer are exactly those people who believe that altmed will help them, I don't think that's a surprising outcome at all. When you're grasping at straws, altmed products turn out to be very graspable. I'd have been surprised if they said that it extended life more than conventional hospice care (which they don't; they don't even claim life extension vs conventional medical care, which is a lower bar), but I am not the least bit surprised that people who choose to seek out altmed products claim to have a slightly better QoL when they get what they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Assessing readability of Wikipedia medicine articles - new developments?

I am coming back to a question I asked in 2017, see in the archive here. I asked about which tools you guys use to determine the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests score. At the time, two websites were recommended to me: This one: Readability of Wikipedia and this one: Hemingway App. I have now noticed that the website ReadabilityofWikipedia no longer gives proper results (I tried it out for Sustainable Development Goals and for sanitation). The hemingway app is great for pieces of text but not so good for an entire Wikipedia article. So I am just wondering if another free website/app has turned up? My google search only led me to place where you have to pay to get the readability of your website analysed. - By the way, have you had further discussions on improving the readability score of the articles within WikiProject Medicine? It is a topic that I feel strongly about - I see it as low-hanging fruit because it is fairly easy to improve readability, and one doesn't need to be a medical expert either. EMsmile (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Mcbrarian, I think this question is for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks WhatamIdoing! EMsmile, I have been using the WebFX readability test tool. You can paste in the URL for a website (in our case a WP page) or your can use the Direct Input tab to paste a block of text and assess its readability. It provides several values for evaluating readability. I like to look at percent of complex words and the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score. Hope this helps! Mcbrarian (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thanks, Mcbrarian - this looks like a really good website! I am going to use it. Are others within WikiProject Medicine also using it routinely to assess and improve readability? I think it should be added (as a link) somewhere on the front page under "what you can do to help". - I've been bold and added something about that here now. EMsmile (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
And I have removed it, as these accessibility evaluators are controversial and contested, which has been well discussed elsewhere. Malaria is not Louisa May Alcott, and we cannot and should not write complex medical topics for sixth graders, who will not be reading those articles anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Separately, since both MEDRS and MEDMOS have strayed from general usefulness, could we please discuss changes before making them? Both pages need complete rewrites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:SandyGeorgia There is a difference between "sixth grader" compared to "10th grader" compared to "PhD level". I bet many articles are at "PhD level" and could relatively easily be improved for readability to "10th grader level". What's controversial about improving readability, and where has it been discussed elsewhere apart from the archive articles that I mentioned above? If you don't like the mentioned tool it could be reworded. Don't you think that improving readability would be important? It's a cop out to say Malaria is a complex thing, therefore, it doesn't matter if lay persons won't understand it (sounds a bit like a doctor who is unable to explain things to patients in language that the patient can understand...) It's not just the education level but also people who don't speak English as their first language and people who plan to translate an article. EMsmile (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I have no plans to continue contentious discussions about the issues with the translation programs or the problems introduced to many articles in the misguided name of readability. As soon as you find an article written at the PhD level, produce it for discussion. Meanwhile, if readers want NIH or CDC fact sheets written for 12-year-olds, google will easily cough them up. Wikipedia does not need to replicate useless drivel like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please EMsmile, don't use these tools. See Readability Formulas: 7 Reasons to Avoid Them and What to Do Instead. These tools were designed before AI and machine learning was a thing, when people dictated to secretaries with typewriters and engineers worked things out on slide rules. We all at WP:MED know that correlation is not causation. It isn't rocket science to measure some crude stats about words on a page and sentence length, without considering at all the meaning of words, and invent an equation that generally outputs a higher number when presented with more complex/difficult prose than when presented with simpler/easier prose. But it is really wrongheaded to think that manipulating the text in a mechanical way, as has been done by some editors, particularly in WP:MED, to reduce the score, makes our articles better. And I use "better" rather than "easier to read", because it is one thing to write text anyone can read, but quite another to write text anyone would want to read.

People have noted that medical articles have unreadable leads. They are "unreadable" not because they are hard, but because you get past the first few sentences and lose the will to live. They are unreadable because although the sentences are short, they are just a collection of random facts presented without thought to developing or introducing concepts. And they often fail in an important part of our educational mission and encyclopaedic purpose, which is teaching our readers some of the difficult words that their doctor will use and are necessary to understand a topic. As an example, I've seen text saying when a drug was "discovered" changed to saying when it was "found", as though a chemist just came across it in the street, or perhaps had lost it the day before, and I've seen an article saying when a drug was first "synthesized" changed to saying when it was "made". But drug discovery and chemical synthesis are both terms a reader will expect to find in an encyclopaedia, and will be surprised by our choice of baby words instead.

I have spent quite a bit of my time on Wikipedia helping subject-knowledgable writers polish prose so that a lay reader can enjoy and understand. Part of that for sure is spotting when a jargon word is used unnecessarily or without/prior to it being explained. Part of that is also spotting sentences that become tangled and over long. But also part of that is really thinking about what the article is trying to teach and the reader is trying to grasp, and fixing it if unclear, or saying so on the talk page. And that doesn't require inserting more full stops to make shorter sentences, or replacing some long words with simpler ones, but often requires unclear prose to be reconsidered by the expert with access to the sources and knowledge of the body of literature. Our best copyeditors don't need to be subject experts, but often work in partnership with the article author to make prose improvements that are then reviewed by that expert to make sure the meaning hasn't been broken.

I would much rather that we junk the pseudoscientific formulas and computer algorithms, and use our human brains to actually read our articles in order to consider if the text is good, or bad. After all, a human brain is what our readers have too. -- Colin°Talk 15:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Colin thank you for your thoughtful response, very useful. Don't worry, I wouldn't use such tools mindlessly. I am involved in a project that will look at hundreds of articles (not medicine ones but on sustainable development issues) to improve them in a week-long online edit-a-thon (more info here). Using a tool for the initial rapid assessment of where we are at could be useful to point to where the problem areas lie. I also like tools like the Hemingway App that points to sentences that seem overly long or complicated or passive voice. But of course the actual editing work would have to be done by humans. I do wonder / hypothesise though that such tools are useful if you want to compare a large number of articles for readability, setting yourself some targets on improving the readability and so forth. I believe that readability is an issue for many Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I would still say that it (= working on readability) would be a useful task that a volunteer could do for us and thus it should be included in the task list of this WikiProject here (but without mentioning particular tools if the tools are the controversial part). - For comparison, we have described it like this for WikiProject Sanitation, see here. EMsmile (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
P.S. And I fully agree with you when you say "Our best copyeditors don't need to be subject experts, but often work in partnership with the article author to make prose improvements that are then reviewed by that expert to make sure the meaning hasn't been broken." - so this is what I think we could capture on the task list, couldn't we? Invite people who are good at copyediting to work with other Wikipedians to make prose improvements. EMsmile (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem has been that editors have been using these tools and methods to make changes they thought were helpful, but actually damaged the articles-- lots of articles, over a long period of time. I am concerned about any widespread use of or endorsement of these tools, as opposed to the careful way Colin and other good editors work through prose. We have lost or will lose almost all of the medical Featured articles because of the damage caused by these approaches-- replacing them with generally useless, dated, and inaccurate Good Articles. The WP:MED page needs to be restructured and rewritten to promote excellence in the way MILHIST does ... and adding this automated tool advice is a step in the wrong direction, particularly when we have so much redesign needed at the WP:MED page to encourage better content ON wikipedia rather than OFF. "Replace long words with short words whenever possible" is sometimes good and sometimes not; but for sure, we have seen people get carried away with these concepts, so that accuracy in medical content is lost. Just because some editor in some country somewhere on the planet cannot translate the common English word "apathy" is not a good reason to remove it from an article. And just because some translator somewhere does not know how to translate the single most common term describing Tourette syndrome (that tics wax and wane), is not a good reason to remove a term (wax and wane) that ANYONE reading about TS will need to learn, because they will encounter it frequently. We have also seen all of the medical pages (MEDMOS, MEDRS and WP:MED) be used to interpret guidance as policy, without common sense, and as soon as you add such "tools", they are likely to be misapplied. And anything that impacts medical accuracy should be discouraged-- these tools have been used in ways that caused that. "Apathy" is much more than "lack of interest". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Until this 2016 edit, MEDMOS said not to write for 12 year olds; perhaps we should restore that. EMsmile is correct that there is a big difference between writing for 12 year olds and writing for older teens, and there is rarely a need for an entire article to be written at the grad school level. Dementia with Lewy bodies#Causes, for example, ranks as being written for 17 year olds, and I doubt that any of us see a need to make it use even longer and more complex sentences.
IMO there are ways to use these tools appropriately. In particular, they can be helpful when looking at individual paragraphs or sections. Previous discussions have generally concluded that the start of a large section should usually be more readable than the rest. The Hemingway app is good for highlighting specific problems, especially the overuse of the passive voice and adverbs (which, when used as intensifiers, tend to be slangy and unencyclopedic in tone: it's not "painful"; it's "really painful!").
I've also found that necessary terminology produces nonsensical results in some systems. So, e.g., these three sentences:
  • Dementia with Lewy bodies is a disease.
  • DLB is a disease.
  • It is a disease.
get different reading scores in one system (10 year olds for the first, beginning readers for the other two), but if you encountered that in context, you'd handle them all with the same ease. This formula is treating with Lewy bodies as a prepositional phrase that contains an adjective, instead of recognizing that the first four words are part of the name.
(The Automated Readability Index says this comment is written at a level appropriate for 14 or 15 year olds.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we should restore that ... but there is so much more. We need a comprehensive look at WP:MED, MEDMOS and MEDRS, and the changes made over five years which are not all helpful. Worried about timing relative to COVID. Also, I expect the Causes and Pathology sections of most articles to be at a higher reading level-- and that applies even more so to a topic like Dementia with Lewy bodies. There is a way to use these tools appropriately, but until we get the project pages back to a place that recognizes the distinction between policy and guidline-- and how to appropriately apply guidelines-- I worry about any additions. I'd rather see us focus on teaching editors to write top content, collaboratively, encouraging and bringing in not only top content people, but non-medical people for jargon checks, and competent copywriters. We see this happening again, FINALLY, with Spicy's and Ajpolino's efforts at complete blood count and at Buruli ulcer. Would that we could get Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, autism and so many other high-pageview articles back to being examples of what we should aim for, rather than removing words like "apathy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with restoring that text. EMsmile, the readability-score mechanical manipulation of medical leads reached its peak with Readability of English Wikipedia's health information over time. This claimed that our articles had improved because their algorithmic readability scores were lower, and also noted that "None of the pages were written at the 7th or 8th grade level as recommended by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)". Such "research" was used to justify removing that earlier guidance and misquoting general Wikipedia guidelines in MEDMOS, which currently says that article leads should be "written as simply as possible", which is quite a different thing from being accessible to and understandable by the widest audience.
I think it is interesting that the article I cited says "Grade levels are not meaningful for adults. Adults who have trouble reading typically know a lot of words and concepts that a grade-level readability test would assume they don’t know." Their "True Story from Ginny" box is also a vital lesson for anyone thinking you can often just substitute "the proper word/words for something" with a "more readable simpler language".
I agree with you that such tools could be used to help highlight potential bad cases most in need of some work. However, they will also find topics that contain a lot of difficult words that are unavoidable, and fail to find topics that are just badly written. They also can only score text that exists, so if the lead fails to mention or explain something critical, you won't even know.
An article I have worked on, on and off, and is in no great shape or example of good practice, is Tuberous sclerosis. The list of medical signs that a doctor will use to diagnose the disease are: facial angiofibromas; fibrous cephalic plaque, ungual fibroma; Shagreen patch (connective tissue nevus); multiple retinal nodular hamartomas; cortical dysplasias; subependymal nodule; subependymal giant cell astrocytoma; cardiac rhabdomyoma; lymphangioleiomyomatosis; renal angiomyolipoma; "confetti" skin lesions; multiple dental enamel pits; multiple intraoral fibromas; retinal achromic patch; multiple renal cysts; nonrenal hamartoma. These are all terms a doctor will use when discussing this disease with patients or carers, many are unique to this disease (rare otherwise), and while we can and should explain what each of these terms means, we can't avoid them. I mean, lymphangioleiomyomatosis. Nine syllables! -- Colin°Talk 19:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
And even with that, gets a grade 12. So, if we have a PhD level article, I'd want to see why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding a task on "improving prose"?

Thanks for all the contributions on the topic of "readability". I am finding it very interesting (and I can hear your pain about people in the past who meant well but made articles worse by trying to simplify language too much). Let's leave aside that discussion about those algorithms and tools for now. Can I reach any consensus on my proposal to add another bullet point to the task list about improving prose? The task list looks like this and I have added a potential new task at the end:

EMsmile (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this is shuffling the chairs on the Titanic ... the design of WP:MED is not conducive to leading readers or participants towards resources or tasks that need to be done, and fiddling with those pages will accomplish little. But ... if we are to add a line, I find your proposed wording will still lead to the same (earlier) problems, and it would be simpler just to focus on the need for copyediting. I would much prefer we get busy redesigning WP:MED so that first and foremost, up top, we find all the ways one can help ON WIKIPEDIA, without having to drill down several layers, and then minimize all of the OFF WIKIPEDIA links -- we serve no one by promoting poor en.Wikipedia content off Wikipedia, and the WikiProject should have its main page be focused on how to collaborate and contribute ON Wikipedia. The page is instead dominated by off-en.Wikipedia ventures, and no one will easily find the many things that need to be done ... like watchlisting the pages that WAID mentioned for finding new editors, and so on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
For every person who edited this page during the last month, there were five more active editors who have this page on their watchlist but didn't comment here. I think that we need to take a both/and approach to getting people involved. Some people want to see a task list; others (perhaps especially highly experienced editors) won't use it. Let's have a list for people who will use it. We need everyone – writers of brilliant prose, people who can identify great sources (Alexbrn handed me a stellar source today, and I'm so excited about it), people who love clicking through RecentChanges to get the garbage out, people who find promising editors and bring them into the fold, people who can clean up after the rest of us... We need all the skills here.
What WPMED "should" focus on as a group is a much longer discussion. We should plan to have that discussion sometime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Using tools for before/after comparisons for article readability

EMsmile I suppose I should have been clearer with respect to how I use this tool. I use this tool to take a before/after snap shot of the work i've done so I can provide some validation for the work I do. I do not use this tool. I take a snap shot of the article before I start changing the article, then a snap shot when I feel I've done all I can do to make the article easier to read. It sounds like some of the tools have been used to actually make changes, rather than to measure the impact of our work. I hope this helps provide some clarity.Mcbrarian (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Mcbrarian Yep, that's exactly how I would use it as well. I find it useful. No, I don't think any of such tools can make (or would make) any editing changes themselves. We still need humans for that. The tolls can just point to where there may be be some problem areas (or may be not). EMsmile (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I am calling baloney on that tool. Plug in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SYNGAP1 And then tell me how an 8th grader can digest things like A well-documented function of SynGAP1 involves NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity and membrane insertion of AMPA receptors through the suppression of upstream signaling pathways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, that's fine with me. I don't look at the grade level. The reading ease score is a better indicator of readability and I think it has been overlooked that this tool is not used to determine the reading level of a given article, but to determine whether the score has changed after one has edited it. As someone who is held accountable for reporting on the work I do with students (including their/my contributions to Wikipedia), using this tool to say "Reading ease score was 48 and now its a 52" is a useful way to quantify the labour beyond how many words/citations I added. You don't have to like it, but I don't think using it in this context is harmful.Mcbrarian (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
But the Reading Ease is based on word counts and syllable counts. It has no concept of how hard the words are or sense whether the make sentences (!). In terms of quantifying labour, this is as wrongheaded as Source lines of code used to be. It is exactly the sort of thing that encourages short choppy sentences and baby words. And one could write Wikipedia articles like Eric Morecambe played the piano and said to Andre Previn: "I'm playing all the right notes. But not necessarily in the right order." A change in reading ease score does not necessarily mean the text is better, easier to read, more readable, however you want to phrase it. -- Colin°Talk 17:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess at some point we'll just have to agree to disagree. I use the tools in the same way as Mcbrarian described it, and I have also had to report to funders about our outputs from edit-a-thons. Yes, of course it would be nicer if you had an expert panel of say 12 people who scrutinised each article before and after and give it their expert-based subjective scores for a number of parameters but this is very time consuming when you deal with dozens of articles. (FYI the methodology that I use for measuring article quality includes nine parameters (readability is just one of them): readability, illustrations, comprehensiveness, sourcing, formatting and neutrality, embedding in web of knowledge, logical flow, ordering of sections, and appropriate level of detail.) My experience with using such tools is that it's helpful - when used in conjunction with critical thinking of course. One would not blindly accept silly scores. Just for the purposes of archiving, the online tool that was used to investigate the leads of medical articles (see this journal paper) was this one: https://www.online-utility.org/ EMsmile (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
While I'm generally sympathetic to "agreeing to disagree", in this case, that would be based on false premises. Unfortunately, these tools have been "blindly" used based on "silly scores", and that did result in widespread damage to articles. And the "journal paper" you cite is a good example of why we have MEDRS for rejecting methodologically flawed primary studies. I hope that anyone editing medical content can easily recognize the flaws there. An editor goes through and changes certain articles according to one rubric, and then tests those articles with that same rubric, and then reports the articles as improved, with no other objective measure of improvement. Primary study with no secondary critique of the methodology used. Really, would we accept that kind of "science" in an article? Even more so when articles have been damaged to the point of inaccuracy? Please ... do not use these kinds of discredited tools to evaluate articles; by using our brains, we can accomplish the broader examination of (as you say) "readability, illustrations, comprehensiveness, sourcing, formatting and neutrality, embedding in web of knowledge, logical flow, ordering of sections, and appropriate level of detail". These tools don't do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

WashPost: Covid-19 is one of Wikipedia’s biggest challenges ever. Here’s how the site is handling it.

As of the end of July, according to Wikimedia Foundation spokeswoman Chantal De Soto, more than 67,000 editors had collaborated to create more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles in 175 different languages about covid-19 and its various impacts. Some of these, including the disease’s main English-language article, are sensitive pages restricted to certain trusted users (a decision made by other Wikipedia volunteers), De Soto said.

By the end of July, the main English-language covid-19 article had been edited 22,000 times by more than 4,000 editors.

— https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/08/07/wikipedia-covid-coronavirus/

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

nice, thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

ICD-10 lists and copyright

From what I can see, the WHO licences the ICD-10 codes under nothing less restrictive than CC BY-SA-NC - making the content of those lists copyrighted and non-free for use on Wikipedia. We have quite literally a complete copy of the ICD-10 codes on Wikipedia, and unless I'm missing something, they appear to all be copyright violations. The ICD-10 classification system certainly is eligible for copyright, and the exact classifications and titles are therefor copyrighted from what I can tell. Before I go mass AFD dozens of articles from over a decade ago in some instances, does anyone have an explanation for this? And even if it is allowed, there is no attribution in some of the articles' history/talk pages - which will be necessary to add (but again, I doubt this is acceptable). bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Great pickup if this is true! (Will wait for more knowledgable editors to contribute) I personally really dislike us reposting these lists of ICD or other codes. We intensely dislike people copying our content verbatim to mirror websites, and that's pretty much what we do with them. Secondly, there is a risk the lists are erroneous and not updated. Thirdly, I dislike the lists because in my personal opinion they violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Editors seem to differ on opinion on this issue however. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • If you can provide a link to the WHO license info, and the relevant Wikipedia articles, we can ping in Diannaa, who is knowledgeable in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The WHO licensing page is here, and the pages are linked from the second section of ICD-10 (titles chapters). bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

We need to consider all the following WHO classifications. The ICD-9 is public domain.[11]

  • ICD-10: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision
  • ICD-O: International Classification of Diseases for Oncology
  • ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
  • ICF-CY: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth

It seems fairly clear to me that we cannot reproduce the lists. -- Colin°Talk 13:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Tom for all the other reasons we should not have these lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree about ICD9 - it’s clearly public domain, and so if we want to reproduce it we aren’t committing infringement to do so. However, even utilizing the ICD10 classification system as a way to organize navbox templates may be infringement, as we may still be copying enough of the “originality” in determining the classification in the template - especially when the organization of our templates is substantially based directly on the ICD10 classification. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia and Colin: so would the next step be to wait for an administrator to delete them? Can they be deleted outside of an AFD discussion given how old they are? I tried to look through and I think they would qualify for "speedy" but I decided to bring it here in case I was missing something. If the next step is an AFD discussion, I'm happy to create one for them. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not an expert on Wikipedia deletion -- more used to Commons for deleting images. I don't see any need for a speedy even if you think they qualify. Better to get some admins to review. Is there another forum on Wikipedia to post copyright queries before preparing an AfD? That might be a better next step than relying on WP:MED members -- you'd get folk with more experience. -- Colin°Talk 16:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
There's WP:Media copyright questions, but that's for media (non-free file usage, etc). I figure an AFD at worst would result in us finding out the reason it's allowed, and at best it allows others to input and be aware of the deletion discussion. I'll wait for Diannaa and SandyGeorgia to reply again before I do anything. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Not my strength, wait for Diannaa. PS, my laptop died, ipad only for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
According to this document ICD-9 is in the public domain. For ICD-10 I found online a second edition as well as a fifth edition and found both are marked as Copyright-All rights reserved. Since the material is organized in a non-alphabetical way, my opinion is that Yes, the even the list-like material enjoys copyright protection. This would to apply content such as what we are hosting at ICD-10 Chapter I: Certain infectious and parasitic diseases. However, we are citing the source, so it's not plagiarism, it's non-free content, the equivalent of a quotation. But if we are in fact reproducing the whole classification system or the majority of it, that's excessive non-free content in my opinion. Pinging additional current copyright patrollers: @Sphilbrick, L3X1, Moneytrees, MER-C, and Wizardman: please comment if you like.— Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we have the entire scheme, split up into different articles because of length. No idea whose brainiac idea that was. For example, I knew we had to take great care with DSM, because they came after us once ... Moonriddengirl dealt with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, Speaking of Moonriddengirl and copyright, a CCI was opened on Dhollm after you brought the edits to CCI; Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dhollm, me and her have worked on it a bit. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 20:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Moneytrees: I saw that, and briefly tried to help, but that editor never properly attributed per WP:CWW, so that tracking stuff down is a nightmare, and I cannot sit for long at a computer. I gave up.
Separately, @Ajpolino, Barkeep49, and Spicy: I keep meaning to get back to you on areas where we need more medical admins, and cannot keep relying on RexxS to do everything ... this thread provided an example. I have others if I ever get caught up ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Diannaa,
It has always been surprising to me that the UN and WHO do not provide more open access. WHO even declares:
WHO supports open access to the published output of its activities as a fundamental part of its mission and a public benefit to be encouraged wherever possible.
Unfortunately, I've had to revert a number of cases where a well-meaning editor tried to incorporate material from the UN or WHO. I usually check, and they usually see that the source material is identified as fully copyrighted or subject to a license that is not consistent with our needs.
That appears to be the case here. My only caveat is that I've occasionally been burned, when some page clearly has a copyright notice or incompatible license, and someone points out a clause on a separate site that expresses a different copyright status for certain information, but absent that, I concur that this information appears not to qualify for inclusion.
Lists can be tricky in copyright discussions. Very roughly speaking, a list that exhibits no value judgments, such as a list of the states of the United States cannot be copyrighted, but lists that show selection and arrangement are typically subject to copyright. See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, which is an essay but seems valid. I think it would be a stretch to argue that this qualifies under the list exception. given the amount of material, I would be uncomfortable calling this a pure list without an opinion from legal counsel.
However, before we go ahead and nuke the material, it may be worth considering other options. Obviously, an acceptable solution would be if WHO agrees to license the material acceptably. I Don't anticipate that individual editors have the heft to persuade the WHO, but perhaps we could persuade the Foundation to take this on. I think the coverage of medical issues and Wikipedia has considerable support within many communities, and press coverage of the possibility we might have to remove useful medical information from Wikipedia might persuade WHO to rethink their position. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Per Diannaa, I would say that is a copyright violation, although this seems like a case where something that should be in public domain isn't. Licenses, man. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 20:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm pessimistic that WHO would be at all interested in making the ICD 10 free for commercial use. They have clearly chosen, as many do, the path that permits non-commercial use but seeks to get a share of the money when used commercially. The impact on Wikipedia is small: a few list articles and perhaps the need for an edit warning not to turn our grouping templates into mirror copies of ICD 10 sections. This is rather nerdy "medical information" in a format/presentation that one would struggle to call "encyclopaedic" for the "general reader". I think the main benefit to Wikipedia is a structured list of topics about which one might create articles. -- Colin°Talk 21:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Colin: I've spent the last hour or so trying to figure out a way to articulate it - It's hardly encyclopedic to base our organization around one specific organizational method - even if that is something used by the entire medical field, it's not useful to the average reader. I also agree that the "grouping templates" (by which I think you include navboxes) need to avoid basing off ICD10 because of its copyright (even if we are making minor changes, I think we would still fall afoul of non-free requirements due to "close paraphrasing"). Most (almost all?) navboxes related to diseases seem to be at least primarily based on ICD classification - a few on ICD9 but most on ICD10... iff those are against non-free rules (which unfortunately I think they likely are), there's a lot of work ahead. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
According to WP:COPYPASTE, the WHO uses a license that is not compatible with Wikipedia.

WHO publications published after 11 November 2016 are issued under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Intergovernmental Organization ( CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO) licence. This licence allows for any non-commercial use, without the need to obtain permission from WHO. Adaptations and translations are also permitted, as long as the adapted work is published under the same licence.

— https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/publishing-policies/open-access
--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

So, what’s next? Can we just put {{db-copyvio}} on articles, link to this thread, and wait for an admin to delete? Or put a list here and ask Diannaa et al to do it ?? Back to, we can’t keep asking RexxS to do all adminly things. WAID, why are you not an admin? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, @SandyGeorgia: I think it may be best to AfD the articles - maybe there's something we're not seeing, and listing them in a batch AfD gives the community at least a few days to let people know if there's something being missed. They've been on WP in some cases for well over a decade - a few more days won't hurt. Furthermore, that provides a record of why it's deleted beyond just "copyvio" - being more specific that ICD10 lists are not "free" for WP use. If nobody opposes, I'm going to create a list of articles at User:Berchanhimez/ICDcopy tomorrow I'll create the AFD with a full reasoning. If my list (which I'll create in the next 10 mins or so) is incomplete please help create it if this is the route we're going to go. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm always happy to help out on request for adminy-things, of course, but I do miss stuff sometimes. In this particular case, I could delete via WP:G12 (copyvio), but I would almost certainly be asked to WP:REFUND the articles, and in refusing, I'd have to make a full explanation of the copyvio, and even then, there would be no protection against re-creation. It's much better in those sort of cases (IMHO) to have the debate at an AfD, as Berchanhimez suggests, to thrash out the arguments and give us a record of the process for the future. We'd then have WP:G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) as a speedy criterion thereafter. Hope that makes sense. --RexxS (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Completely :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Red links

Redlinks all over creation now, all the backlinks to all of these need fixin'. I fixed mine like this and this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Update per conversation below: I removed all mention from Template:Tourette syndrome, and have added text about codes to Tourette syndrome and dementia with Lewy bodies, section Classification. Because individuals receiving diagnoses from health care providers may want to look them up, and because FAs must be comprehensive, the info should be somewhere as we delete all these templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up #1: Remove ICD-9 chapters?

As a follow-up to the above, although it does not have the same copyright issues, for the other reasons we've discussed above (mainly WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTMIRROR), what is the thought about a follow-up nomination for the ICD-9 chapters? (within this cat: Category:International_Classification_of_Diseases). --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be better to wait a while, and see how much work cleaning up this set of deletions turns out to be. If the process turns out to look like delete – de-link – regret – create redirects or actual non-copyvio articles – re-link, then it'd be better to be able to apply that process to the ICD-9 pages from the start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Redirects to ICD-10 may be valid, but they aren't valid search terms imo so redirects would only serve to make it so we don't have to delink everything. I do not think the individual ICD sections are independently deserving of articles, unless one section has somehow obtained more controversy or coverage than any other. Most of the ICD-10 coverage is going to be as a whole, or passing mentions of specific sections. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)]]
I think WAID approach is sensible. We can wait a little and nominate in a month or two when the waters have died down a bit and the implications of the discussion are better known. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
This feels similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATC code A07, although I suppose that page was a list of wikilinks and the pages in Category:International_Classification_of_Diseases are lists of external links. My feeling is still that these pages are unencyclopedic content mirrors. But based on the previous AfD I'm not sure how widely that opinion is held. You're certainly welcome to put together another bulk AfD to gauge community opinion. Ajpolino (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ajpolino: ATC codes look to also be covered by copyright, free for non-commercial use only no.... https://www.whocc.no/copyright_disclaimer/ PainProf (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up #2: Remove ICD-10 from navboxes?

As a follow-up to the above, I see above a mention by Berchanhimez that it may also be a copyvio to use ICD-10 codes in our navbox titles (please see here for what I mean by this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_138#Proposal_to_remove_ICD_codes_from_templates). I've currently got a local and Wikidata bot request waiting to port these to Wikidata. Is it more appropriate just to delete the ICD-10 codes in navbox titles outright? --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think yes. I also think that the navboxes themselves are likely copyvios if they substantially and largely copy the organization ICD came up with. The organization of diseases isn’t alphabetical, there is some originality to it, and as such, even if we aren’t listing the codes themselves, we are still copying the organizational method used. That’s not a battle I want to fight right now, but I think a good easier step is to start removing the ICD10 codes as we can. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok; in the meantime I'll push forward with my plan to port them to Wikidata, following which they can be removed. If there's some worry about that in the future, the ICD codes can be discussed for deletion separately, on Wikidata. Because we have about 1000 non COVID templates, I think it is better if we can get a bot to do this work. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up #3: Remove all ICD codes from navboxes?

As a follow-up to the above statement about ICD-10, is it useful at all to have navboxes have ICD codes associated with them at all? We are an independent unaffiliated encycopedia and navbox contents change all the time, I personally don't see it as useful in any respect, we are WP:NOTDIRECTORY and, although I mentioned I am waiting for a local and Wikidata bot request to port these to Wikidata, such a port is likely ultimately to produce some degree of inaccuracy as navboxes change over time. What are the opinions about just stripping the ICD codes, without preserving them in Wikidata at all? --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, my understanding used to be that the Med project used ICD codes ( perhaps[?] along with MeSH terms - imo, an inappropriate usage ) as a tool for hierarchical/skeletal indexing of disease/condition content on Wikipedia, as accessed via navboxes, or wherever. While that doesn't directly match any of the uses prescribed by the WHO, it's reasonable to suspect (as others have noted above) that WP:PURPOSE provides a good general fit with WHO's position on free digital access to health research, per its "long history of making health information and evidence widely accessible."[12] As regards the copyright/legal aspects, I suspect the WMF would find an open door to discuss and agree acceptable usage. As regards our own WPMED decisions on how to index/organize our disease/condition content, I feel it's important to ensure we don't rush into throwing out the baby with the < aptly delisted ;-> bathwater.

Just as a personal pov (from someone who believes certain 'nerdy' attributes can facilitate appropriate content :-), I'd prefer ICD codes (and MeSH terms, etc) to be somehow visible directly from a Wikipedia disease/condition page where they can be readily consulted and pondered, rather than exiled to Wikidata, where they're not so readily accessible either for reference or maintenance. 86.191.67.232 (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I think it'd be great for the WMF to use their platform to encourage the WHO to actually make their things "open access" in line with what truly open means. And I don't think anyone's saying remove the ICD10 codes from individual articles - just to remove them from things like navbox templates that are too "copy" for comfort. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that Berchanhimez. 86.191.67.232 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Statpearls reliability

I looked at the previous postings on this page which suggest tentative acceptance, but when I read on topics I know a bit about, they seem q. inaccurate and the sourcing quite off base e.g. Chronic pain calls opioids second line analgesics in intractable neuropathic pain, fails to mention that TCAs are first line for neuropathic pain. i.e. Their guidance is far removed from clinical guidelines. Secondly, the grammar and writing quality is of concern, it makes me think they are not peer reviewed. Thirdly, the authors seem to be pumping them out quite rapidly, which normally isn't good for clinical reviews, these would normally take time and be written by subject matter experts rather than generalists. As best as I can tell they don't have the same quality as UptoDate for instance, but they are free. They seem to be used in a lot of articles here, so I'm curious what others think of them. PainProf (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at a few, and the phrase "low-quality tertiary source" sprang to mind (since they seem to draw on both primary and secondary material). Some of the sources used seem old - the articles probably wouldn't pass muster on Wikipedia. I think they might be best categorized as a MEDRS of last resort (like WebMD) - maybe okay for mundane claims but definitely not okay for anything contested/surprising, particularly for treatment efficacy. Perhaps if we can get consensus here this should be entered at WP:RSP as I foresee a recurrent debate about this. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should encourage RSP entries for anything except the very worst. RSP entries tend to be enforced mindlessly, even when the entry specifically says not to do that. RSP in general has a problem with our fundamental WP:RSCONTEXT approach (in which what you're writing is important, not solely the identity of the source). Something like StatPearls or MayoClinic.com might be okay for a simple claim, and inappropriate for something more complex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Alexbrn but also with WAID ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I like Statpearls' mission ("To provide an affordable, high-quality education solution for healthcare practitioners worldwide") but the implementation has not worked well in my estimation. I'm surprised the National Library of Medicine automatically indexes their articles. I've read several Statpearls articles in my bailiwick and have seen only a couple that were good, the rest were mediocre and did not seem to have been written by subject matter experts. Plus, I am a bit leery of the "open source" image they project, when, in fact, they are a for-profit Florida Limited Liability Corporation that sells CE/CME courses, study guides, etc.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 01:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this topic up. Statpearls is used as a ref >20 times at Prostaglandin E2. As part of watching the med students work on this article, I will check if the use of Statpearls is of good quality. David notMD (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS matter: Relaying information about crafting leads and terminology/technical language

We need opinions on the following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Removing guidance about the lead, and adding a bit about terminology and technical language. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Transition/success rate of each vaccine trial phase

Any idea where to find references to answer the "Success of each phase" question in Talk:Vaccine trial? SuaveLion21 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

GI health

Pemphigus includes references to "GI health", without defining the term. GI health is a red link. Please can someone clarify the topic, and create a redirect? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's short for gastrointestinal health. I expanded the acronym. I'm not sure there's a good target for GI health to redirect to... Gastrointestinal system#Clinical significance maybe, but that section is really about diseases, not health per se. Also, effectively all of that paragraph in the Pemphigus article is unsourced... the single source doesn't mention anything about gastrointestinal disorders. Spicy (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I've redirected to GI, a disambiguaton page, for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The new Russian COVID vaccine

These seems to be a push to have Wikipedia make prominent mention of this. How to do it with a WP:NPOV requires the sort of skills which could, I think, be usefully provided by WT:MED regulars; more eyes would help. Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there is no published scientific evidence that this vaccine is non-toxic, produces an immune response, and prevents COVID-19 infection. It's racing way ahead of the vaccine development process as political propaganda which is what it would be called if the Brits suddenly announced the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was "approved and registered" or if the US short-circuited the FDA approval process and gave a green light now for selling and vaccinating with the Moderna candidate. See clinical trial status of the COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Zefr (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I've put the general sanctions notices on Gam-COVID-Vac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and placed a restriction on adding biomedical content without MEDRS-compliant sources. That is our best bulwark against speculative claims. Nevertheless, there are reliable sources indicating that Russia has "registered" the vaccine (whatever that means). The reporting of that fact is subject to WP:WEIGHT, so while it's interesting, it doesn't warrant extra emphasis on one particular vaccine among the 200+ candidates, IMHO.
User:Ymblanter has fully-protected COVID-19 vaccine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for three days, so the discussion there should shift to the talk page for now. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking about imposing the sanction on the article, but it is stupid to do for three days full protection. After the full protection expires, one would need to restore semi or even extended-confirmed protection, and it would be reasonable to log the sanction at that point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Guardian cartoon -- Colin°Talk 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@Colin: Editorial Cartoon from October/November 1957 --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Put now COVID-19 vaccine under the general sanction--Ymblanter (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

An exception to WP:MEDRS?

Are primary research articles, even with very preliminary results, acceptable if one discusses and cites them in a "Research" section? For example, Alcoholism#Research and Cocaine dependence#Research.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Only if they are frequently cited in some fashion, I'd say. Scores of primary research is published every day, we can't catalogue it all and we can't arbitrarily pick out some to mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Markworthen: Generally no, except in exceptional circumstances (which are outlined - in rough - at WP:MEDFAQ). Significant research tends to get discussed in secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you both for your responses. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_139"