Jump to content

Talk:Immune system: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 108: Line 108:


While the recently added Sender et al. citation was removed for lack of context, the quantitative estimates of the immune system in that paper warrant brief mention to provide readers intuitive insight. Specifically, the cited paper calculates the human immune system contains approximately 1.8 trillion cells, dwarfing the ~100 billion neurons in the brain nearly 15-fold. Additionally, at an estimated 1.2 kg, the immune system weighs 3-5 times more than an average adult heart (250-350 grams). As these facts illustrate the immune system's considerable magnitude relative to other organs, they impart useful perspective for general readers. Thus a pared down summary contextualizing these cell count and weight comparisons could suitably supplement the article, without diving into excessive detail tangential to the core content. [[User:LittleHow|LittleHow]] ([[User talk:LittleHow|talk]]) 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
While the recently added Sender et al. citation was removed for lack of context, the quantitative estimates of the immune system in that paper warrant brief mention to provide readers intuitive insight. Specifically, the cited paper calculates the human immune system contains approximately 1.8 trillion cells, dwarfing the ~100 billion neurons in the brain nearly 15-fold. Additionally, at an estimated 1.2 kg, the immune system weighs 3-5 times more than an average adult heart (250-350 grams). As these facts illustrate the immune system's considerable magnitude relative to other organs, they impart useful perspective for general readers. Thus a pared down summary contextualizing these cell count and weight comparisons could suitably supplement the article, without diving into excessive detail tangential to the core content. [[User:LittleHow|LittleHow]] ([[User talk:LittleHow|talk]]) 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:It was an interesting paper but as it is a primary source it not [[WP:MEDRS]] compliant. We need to wait for this to be discussed in a review article in an established journal. [[User:Graham Beards|Graham Beards]] ([[User talk:Graham Beards|talk]]) 14:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:53, 4 November 2023

Featured articleImmune system is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 1, 2007, and on December 30, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article


Concern raised at WP:ERRORS

Please see here. I'd be grateful if someone would post a response there, though much of it may be a matter for this talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard any of the concerns to be errors.
  • With regard to the use of the definite article, this is what our sources use; see for example: Sompayrac L (2019). How the immune system works. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-119-54212-4. OCLC 1083261548. (my emphasis).
  • As for the use of the word "diseases". The immune system is not only important in "infectious disease" and "damage", among others in plays a role in embryology. I think, for the Lead, it's ok to lack a little precision here.
  • It's not really a medical topic; it's biology.
  • "The figure legend contains no errors. But an improved legend could be proposed on the article's Talk Page.
  • The "other mechanisms that protect us from harm" have nothing at all to do with immunity. We draw the line where our sources do. Again see Sompayrac.
  • The article is stable, and has been for years. The improvements and updates that have been made for its second time as TFA, should not be regarded as symptom of instability.
Graham Beards (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Organs

I came to this article looking for information on immune system organs such as lymph nodes and the spleen. I noticed this information is absent. A search of the article turns up "lymph node" one time, and spleen zero times. If you think it fits, consider adding a section or paragraph somewhere listing and describing the immune system organs. This might also be a good candidate for a diagram. Maybe something similar to this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss "Organs of the lymphatic system" at the bottom? Graham Beards (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss it. Thanks for pointing it out. Perhaps it deserves more weight than a collapsed navbox, but up to you guys. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin D

Why does this article put a sharp focus on Vitamin D? And not on other hormones that regulate immune cells? In the paragraph 'Vitamin D', nothing is explained about how this vitamin mechanistically modulates T-cells, only that T-cells extend calcitriol receptors. To get the relevance across, it might be worthwhile to explain that vitamin D deficiency is associated with autoimmune diseases. Eosino (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the previous content was both vague from in vitro research and outdated. I replaced the content and sources with this edit. Discussing vitamin D - even with inconclusive content to reflect the current state of science - seems reasonable, as there is plentiful attention in laboratory research to identify vitamin D effects on immune cells. However, no WP:MEDRS reviews exist to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between vitamin D and immune function. Zefr (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Physical excercise

The following is from my Talk Page: I am planning to (at least partially) tackle the exercise article, which is in a rather abyssmal state. I noticed the amount of coverage medical sources have regarding the immune system and exercise, and upon glossing over immune system, there weren't any mentions of exercise, physical activity etc., which is very surprising. Wouldn't it be wise to have a section dedicated to the effects of exercise, perhaps below the "Sleep and rest" section? I've found some great systematic reviews on the topic, and a few umbrella reviews mentioning it. I'd be happy to help out with creating such a section. Any thoughts? Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes you are right. It is a serious omission. May I suggest we collaborate on a section? Graham Beards (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'm very busy today but I have plenty of time this weekend. I'll give you a notice when I'm ready! Search wherever you want and you'll stumble upon some great findings on this topic; Cochrane and PubMed seems like a good start, but I'm sure the refs you already used in immune system are also useful. Wretchskull (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking forward to a fruitful collaboration. Graham Beards (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I've picked a few sources here, mostly from a journal specialized in this topic (Exercize Immunology Review). I was wondering what the structure of such a section should be. Do you think we should have a paragraph explaining the technical microscopic changes and a paragraph below for its studied effects on infections, inflammation, cancer, etc.? Wretchskull (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's best if we only use reviews as these are compliant with WP:MEDRS. From a quick glance , I think I spotted some primary studies. Perhaps we should move our conversation to the article's Talk Page? That way others can pitch in. With regard to the section's structure, I suggest the heading "Effect of physical excercise" ( I think the article uses UK English, but I will have to check), followed by a section on the effects on innate immunity, one on adaptive immunity and, as you said, effects on disease course (but we must avoid primary studies). Thoughts? Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I'll start working on its medical effects, but I would appreciate if you could help with innate/adaptive immunity as my knowledge in that topic is nowhere near as vast as an expert like yours. If I have any questions I'll use the article talk page from now on. By the way, regarding the sources, I was surprised when you said some were primary. I assume it's because it doesn't have the blue highlight with the word "review" on it (like this one)? The title of such sources contain the word "review", otherwise I wouldn't use them. All MEDRS sources I use are filtered by review, systematic review, or meta analysis. I might be missing something, though, and I'd be happy if you could correct me. Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't looked at them closely. Graham Beards (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the new section.Graham Beards (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add a mention in this article of the peripheral immune system--or create an article for this? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Total mass, number, and distribution of immune cells in the human bod

While the recently added Sender et al. citation was removed for lack of context, the quantitative estimates of the immune system in that paper warrant brief mention to provide readers intuitive insight. Specifically, the cited paper calculates the human immune system contains approximately 1.8 trillion cells, dwarfing the ~100 billion neurons in the brain nearly 15-fold. Additionally, at an estimated 1.2 kg, the immune system weighs 3-5 times more than an average adult heart (250-350 grams). As these facts illustrate the immune system's considerable magnitude relative to other organs, they impart useful perspective for general readers. Thus a pared down summary contextualizing these cell count and weight comparisons could suitably supplement the article, without diving into excessive detail tangential to the core content. LittleHow (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was an interesting paper but as it is a primary source it not WP:MEDRS compliant. We need to wait for this to be discussed in a review article in an established journal. Graham Beards (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]