Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daphne Morrow (talk | contribs) at 05:33, 2 January 2025 (→Clean up of Thyroid hormone articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

    Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

    We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

    List of archives

    valvular heart disease: treatment

    In the valvular heart disease article in the section on treatment of Aortic valve disorder, it is said that treatment is normally surgical, with catheter treatment for special cases. I have just been told by a cardiologist that catheter treatment is now preferred for all patients. 38.55.71.51 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "dissociates by quantum" / "the quantum of fatigue"

    If someone with the relevant expertise could look at this baffling language in the Fatigue article, that would be wonderful. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. Jaredroach (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retinal tuft and VTS: draft articles

    Hi! I noticed that there are no articles on Retinal tuft or Vitreomacular traction syndrome, common eye conditions that can lead to retinal detachments. I have never started an article before and decided to try it out. I would love some help expanding to the level where I can submit it. Suggestions super welcome. I am also curious how much I should expand it before I submit it. Are stubs accepted? If so, can I submit now?

    Thank you so much! JenOttawa (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I encourage you to write more, both of the articles look acceptable for WP:AFC. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these articles are in the mainspace now. Thank you for your work! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Neurocysticercosis Peer review

    Hello everyone, in an attempt to get Neurocysticercosis to FA status I have begun a WP:Peer review on the topic which can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. Any input is welcomed! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New disease outbreak

    I've created 2024 unknown Democratic Republic of Congo disease outbreak. I hope this isn't premature, but it seemed to me like there was enough to start an article. The name will probably have to change as learn more. Input from others very welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    lab results pending doubtful it's 'unknown'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed there was already 2024 Kwango province disease outbreak. Will merge. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It's not unusual to get a couple of people simultaneously starting articles on events. The ocean-near-California earthquake yesterday had half a dozen people starting articles that all got merged up. I treat it as proof that someone else also thought the subject was notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Delay, Deny, Defend (practice)

    I recently created a draft for Delay, Deny, Defend (practice), which has recently gotten a lot of press in the aftermath of the Killing of Brian Thompson. There is currently an article for the book Delay, Deny, Defend, but I believe the practice is notable enough for its own article. I'd appreciate any help with sourcing. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    it needs more text and sources...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Assisted suicide#Requested move 30 November 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Assisted suicide#Requested move 30 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Images

    We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are supporting an illustrator. Do folks here have drawings they wish to see created? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Obstetric Fistula Locations Diagram
    In 2015, an illustrator made this diagram for us. Perhaps this will spark an idea for someone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for a Tuesday Challenge? Pelvis_justo_major - Giant Pelvis

    Hi! I came across this article from the list of uncited articles. It has some very very very outdated citations! I looked briefly on pubmed and also did some hand searching on google for anything anywhere near a MEDRS source. I am now out of time and figured I would post it here in case someone else wants to try this challenge! Perhaps there is a more common name for this condition of a distorted pelvis that is being missed? Not sure how they got the incidence quote etc. Happy editing!

    Pelvis justo major

    JenOttawa (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    this is the only thing I found--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Ozzie10aaaa:. I found a book on amazon that was written from the Wikipedia article. Yikes! https://www.amazon.com.au/Pelvis-Justo-Major-Fernande-Antigone/dp/613793196X Not using this source- ha! JenOttawa (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, that happens alot,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge proposed for Disorders of Sex Development and Sexual Anamolies

    Here's the discussion for anyone interested. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Introducing Let's Connect

    Hello everyone,

    I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is Serine Ben Brahim and I am a part of the Let’s Connect working group - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : MENA | South Asia | East, South East Asia, Pacific | Sub-Saharan Africa | Central & Eastern Europe | Northern & Western | Latina America.

    Why are we outreaching to you?

    Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Wikipedia, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics here.

    We want to invite community members who are:

    • Part of an organized group, official or not
    • A formally recognized affiliate or not
    • An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
    • An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.

    To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this registration form.

    Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about this project or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at Letsconnectteam@wikimedia.org. We look forward to hearing from you :)

    Many thanks and warm regards,

    Let’s Connect Working Group Member

    Let's_Connect_logo Serine Ben Brahim Serine Ben Brahim (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions

    Requesting input on this topic here at WikiProject Pharmacology. Thanks. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 10:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TNIK and comparable genes with inhibitors in clinical trials

    I started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology, and it was suggested that I inquire here. Basically, Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles on individual human genes, many bot-made and maintained with very little human attention. TNIK caught my eye because a happened to read about clinical trials underway for inhibitors thought to be cancer-preventative. As noted in the other discussion, Wikipedia coverage of gene-directed trial therapies ranges from something like USP1 (which currently contains no information on investigative efforts), to CD47 (which is reasonably well-covered in this respect). BD2412 T 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    added some recent papers, general research--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - I will get around to adding some specifics. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Drowning

    The WHO has released their first-ever Global Report on Drowning Prevention. It has national statistics, risk factors, evidence-based prevention recommendations, and more.

    Pbsouthwood, Belbury, Ex nihil, Scriptir EMsmile, would this interest any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I will take a look. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take a look too. Thank you Scriptir (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Do The Lancet's Personal View articles meet the standards for a secondary source?

    Hi WikiProject Medicine,

    The Lancet has a kind of article called a 'Personal View' that is peer reviewed. It has a lot of the formalities of a review article -- description of search strategy and selection criteria, extensive citations for claims, etc. Does this count as a review, and if not, does it still count as a suitable secondary source for biomedical information? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh I forgot to add. 'Personal View' articles come up when you search The Lancet for review articles only, so clearly The Lancet's editors consider them as part of the Review category. But does WikiProject Medicine? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be fine for non-contentious knowledge and non-novel claims. Novel personal views may be due and should probably be attributed. Any examples in mind? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this.
    I was asking in general but here is an example:
    Hashimoto’s disease has a widely discussed issue with persistent symptoms in about 10-15% of patients despite euthyroid status. There’s a number of commonly discussed hypotheses for why this might be. An article like this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(22)00004-3/abstract
    discusses one of the more common hypotheses, that some patients lack peripheral tissue conversion of t4 into t3. I feel something like this makes for a suitable source in context? Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that an article like this would be sufficient for paraphrasing a background section of an article, if a higher quality review/textbook etc is not available. In my own editing I would not share the hypotheses of a mechanism responsible for persisting symptoms from a commentary article without higher quality supporting MEDRS sources.JenOttawa (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Jen, that makes perfect sense. Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The proposal is to move the page Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 → COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PANDAS

    There are a lot of new SPAs at Talk:PANDAS; more eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could some people please put this article on their Watchlists? In the last month, only nine registered editors with this on their watchlists have checked this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added it to my watchlist. Is the article itself getting vandalized? If so it might need page protection. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 21:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's getting well-intentioned efforts from people who believe the article has the wrong POV. They may not be 100% wrong, so we need good editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct; and it is a difficult topic complicated by multiple factors. The topic has long been plagued by canvassing that occurs at popular tic-related message boards and online support groups for parents -- a phenomenon mentioned in multiple sources -- so editors who understand policy and guideline as well as medicine have been lacking to keep up with that. Some dated sections need rewriting (not so much for changed content, but to update the citations used that usually say same), but motivation wanes when much educating about policies and guidelines has to be done along the way, along with answering a lot of misinformation or overinterpretation of sources. Summary: more eyes needed, still and always. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a lay article that provides an overview of the territory:
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A good deal of the talk discussion at PANDAS is now about PANS, which was AFD'd 12 years ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome). Is it time now to create that article? When PANS first came up, it was just another in a string of hypotheses (PANDAS, PITANDs, PANS, CANS); now it seems to be the prevailing one. I'm unsure of the technicalities of overriding that AFD, or even if that's the best course of action; if someone clues me in on how to proceed here, I could stub up the new PANS article. Ajpolino? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that would be reasonable, but step one is going to be finding some good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary reviews since the 2012 AFD, at least:
    1. PMID 39334578 2024
    2. PMID 34197525 2021
    3. PMID 33041996 2020
    4. PMID 32206586 2020
    5. PMID 31111754 2019
    6. PMID 30996598 2019
    7. PMID 29309797 2018
    ... at least. So if someone advises on the process for overwriting an AFD'd article, I can separate out the relevant content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I think that just boldly replacing the redirect with a decent article would be fine. It might be convenient to draft it in your sandbox, so you can replace it in a single edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could do that as soon as I get a free moment; I just wanted to be sure a bold replacement over a previous AFD wouldn't be problematic. I should be able to get to that later today, unless someone tells me doing so is unwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We could take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you'd like to avoid any possible risk of a {{db-repost}} complaint. (I could take it there for you, if you'd like.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am drowning IRL ... maybe we could wait 'til after Christmas? I'm not sure anyone would object to the article being recreated, as I was the only one opining in the past! Whatever you think, I'm just SO out of time ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:There's no deadline. In the meantime, here's a virtual life preserver: 🛟 WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- Colin°Talk 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of any reason to oppose that; would like to see more feedback, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Re Is the article itself getting vandalized?, another question is whether the talk page is being used appropriately or disruptively? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Water fluoridation

    If someone has an or two eyes on that - new account promotes findings of a review regarding associations of IQ and fluoridation (what is missing: decrease in IQ points). This review is flawed - Garbage in, garbage out - as it solely relies on the flawed papers from the past. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the note.
    This is a political 'thing' in the US at the moment, so having a decent article will be the best way to prevent well-intentioned but imperfect attempts to improve it. In particular, I think that the claims that have been in the news for the last year should be directly mentioned and addressed. Usually, if we put in something that says "____ was claimed, but this is wrong because..." then that will work, but if we remove it, then people assume that it's accidentally missing, and that we would consider if helpful for someone to add "____ is true!" to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That ist true, but the SPA is now even removing all criticism at all. I didn't delete it just moved it.
    that is why this is highly flawed and needs attention by more members here. The SPA is just reverting in a nonconstructive way.--Julius Senegal (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Anome, I see you were editing that page recently. @Doc James semi'd the page indefinitely years ago. What do you think about raising that to WP:EXTCONFIRMED? Or tagging it as part of WP:AP2, since that's what's driving the edit wars? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Better sooner than later.
    You see that also on the discussion page. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Review AI-generated articles

    Hi there! While reviewing at AfC, I recently came across several AI-generated medical articles, some of which are still in draftspace and some of which have been accepted and moved to mainspace. These articles do not immediately come across as AI-generated, but when run through Wikipedia GPTzero, they have high AI-generation scores.

    I would really appreciate it someone over here could help go through the articles to ensure accuracy. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Significa liberdade, I looked at Bile acid synthesis disorders. It was created in multiple edits over the space of several hours. All the refs are real. (I know nothing about the subject matter.) Do you have any reason except for the tool to believe that this is LLM content?
    I am suspicious of "detector" tools, because they sometimes declare content that I wrote to be generated by an LLM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, WhatamIdoing! I ran it through Wikipedia GPTzero. That particular article shows a 99.8% AI-generation score. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Significa liberdade, I ran some of the early revisions through the same tool, and it said human: 0.983, ai: 0.017, and mixed: 0.0. Try putting the version just before your own edits in the tool and see what you get. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing: Interesting... I'll have to bring this up to the individual who created the tool. I initially ran the edit before mine through the tool, and it told me 90-100% AI-generated. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the tool may be wrong, I do find it telling that when I ask ChatGPT to write a Wikipedia article about Bile acid synthesis disorders, it basically writes the exact article currently published.
    Chat's lead reads, "Bile acid synthesis disorders (BASDs) are a group of rare, inherited metabolic conditions caused by defects in the enzymes involved in the production of bile acids. Bile acids are essential for the digestion and absorption of fats and fat-soluble vitamins, as well as for the regulation of cholesterol levels. BASDs can lead to a variety of symptoms, including liver dysfunction, malabsorption, and developmental delays."
    Aside from a few slight wording adjustments, this is exactly what is written in the article. The classification section is the same way. The other sections have similar starts. Chat's sections are just about a sentence each, so it's quite possible each section was started and then asked something along the lines of "Could you expand on that"? When I asked GPT to expand on classification, it started adding similar information as to what is in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if it is (now) adapting the Wikipedia article, or if it would have given you the same results before the Wikipedia article was created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No CSD for badly referenced medical articles/gibberish?

    So, Yangqi acupoint has sadly been created by one of my students (sorry). But it also made me suprised - I was going to CSD it but I could not see an applicable criterion? Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 11:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    One person's "badly referenced medical content" is another person's WP:TRUTH. I think you did a reasonable thing by moving it to the Draft: namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the sort of thing that I would think would have a CSD criterion at all. BD2412 T 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It's not concrete and indisputable enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clean up of Thyroid hormone articles

    Hi Wikiproject Medicine, seeking a little bit of preliminary input here.

    I'm looking at how WP presents information around Thyroxine, Levothyroxine, Levothyroxine Sodium; and Tri-iodothyronine, Liothyronine and Liothyronine Sodium. Thinking a bit about the best way to present the info, because I know how interchangably some of these terms get used even in literature (eg liothyronine used to refer to endogenous tri-iodothyronine, or levothyroxine sodium being commonly referred to as levothyroxine), even though they technically refer to different things.

    At the moment:

    For T3, there's a page for Liothyronine the drug, and one for Tri-iodothyronine the hormone.

    For T4, there's one page called Levothyroxine which is for the drug, and another page called Thyroid Hormones for Thyroxine the hormone (but this page covers both T4 and T3).

    For consistency, I'm trying to decide if it would be of benefit to:

    A) propose a merger of Tri-iodothyronine into Thyroid Hormones (with the result being three pages -- one for thyroid hormones, one for liothyronine the drug, one for levothyroxine the drug)

    B) propose that Thyroxine the hormone gets its own article and the Levothyroxine page becomes more exclusively about the drug (with the result being five pages, one overview of thyroid hormones, one for thyroxine the hormone, one for levothyroxine the drug, one for tri-iodothyronine the hormone, one for liothyronine the drug).

    Thoughts? Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When a substance is both a natural hormone and a drug, generally there are separate articles. For example insulin vs. insulin (medication), testosterone vs. testosterone (drug). So I would support having separate hormone and drug articles for T3 and T4.
    Thyroxine (T4; the natural hormone) was once a standalone article that was turned into a redirect to Levothyroxine (the synthetic drug). Thyroxine (and also levothyroxine) refers specifically to T4. Thyroid hormones refers to thyroxine and its active metabolites (T3, rT3, etc.)
    There are three somewhat overlapping topics here: the chemical substances, the hormone(s), and the drug that fall under the scope of WP:Chemistry, WP:MCB, and WP:Pharmacology respectively. The is a general rule in WP:Chemistry, one article for each chemical substance. Hence we should have separate articles for T4, T3, rT3, etc. that transclude {{Chembox}}. Finally within the scope of WP:MCB, a single article about the Thyroid hormones makes sense. Boghog (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that makes sense. Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daphne Morrow: The new thyroxine page could look something like User:Boghog/Sandbox10 (please especially note the hat note). Boghog (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing, I would support this for the new thyroxine page.
    I have a further question, do you think we need to be clearer on the pages about Levothyroxine and Liothyronine about the difference between plain levothyroxine and levothyroxine] sodium, plain liothyronine and liothyronine sodium? Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears commercial formulations of both liothyronine and levothyroxine almost always contain the sodium salt. This could be mentioned in an "available forms" section under "medical uses" (see WP:PHARMOS). In addition, it could be mentioned that available forms include oral tablets, oral capsules, oral solution, and injectable forms. Boghog (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that these details (e.g., tablets vs capsules) are important. I'd only include available forms if it's a bit unusual (e.g., IV-only antibiotics, since people expect those to be pills, or oral chemotherapy drugs, since people expect those to be infusions) or if there is something special to be said about a particular formulation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a quick look at sources and this is what I found:
    For levothyroxine sodium:
    IV is used for extreme thyroid hormone deficiency: https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2000/1201/p2485.html
    Oral solution is proposed to have benefits for children and people who find it difficult to swallow tablets (https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/levothyroxine/), may be taken with some substances that usually interfere with levothyroxine in tablet form (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.1080108/full), and may allow more precise dosing (Seen this multiple times in unreliable sources but need to find a reliable source that says it).
    For liothyronine sodium:
    IV is sometimes used for extreme thyroid hormone deficiency (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214624521000186)
    Oral solution is presumably useful for children and people who have difficulty swallowing, but I didn’t find sources that back that up, so I will leave that out pending future info. Liquid may allow more precise dosing: (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/endocrj/63/6/63_EJ16-0040/_article).
    I think it would be good to note slow-release and regular release formulations as regular release creates peaks of T3 that make it difficult to monitor and are unlike the stability of endogenous T3 levels. “slow-release oral form of liothyronine showed a delayed, smaller serum T3 peak when compared with levothyroxine plus the standard liothyronine preparation.” (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(22)00004-3/abstract)
    I'd like some guidance on whether details like this are good to include. Daphne Morrow (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help on adding content to WikiProject Medicine

    Hello all. I specialize in the field of medicine and wanted to add content to wiki project medicine. However, I am very new to Wikipedia editing. Some hours back, I created a page on Wiki project [User:Neotaruntius/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Medicine]. But I can't figure out what to do now. Nor can I see my name in participants' full list. Can someone tell me If by mistake I created a wrong page? Or may be suggest me how I can actively participate, if this is the right page. Kindly help. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Neotaruntius, welcome! The bot adds names once a day to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members. Your name is there now, so you must have done everything right.
    One project underway is to get at least one reference in every article this group supports. We only have 64 left to go. If you want to pick one (or a dozen!) from this list and add a suitable reliable source to it, that would be really helpful. (It's even more helpful if you also remove the {{unreferenced|date=January 2010}} tag from the top of the article.)
    Alternatively, if you want to work on creating a new article, look at the two sections following this. I'm sure they would appreciate some help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: Thanks very much sir. Everything is appearing so new to me. As you can understand from my edits, I am very new to Wikipedia editing. Let me get used to this new interface. I will most definitely do as suggested. Many thanks for this huge favor.Neotaruntius (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're always glad to see new people helping out.
    BTW, for adding sources to articles, I prefer using the visual editor. You should use whichever you like best. So you can compare them, for the article Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, here's a link that will take you straight to the older wikitext editor and here's a link that will give you the same article in the visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to echo user WAID's warm welcome. It is great to see new medical editors here! Happy editing and feel free to reach out anytime if you have any questions or want us to take a peek at your edits as you learn. JenOttawa (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    New drug names

    Lists of new generic drug names under consideration or recommended as International Nonproprietary Names can be found at https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-standards/inn/inn-lists Similarly, drug names under consideration as United States Adopted Names can be seen at https://www.ama-assn.org/about/united-states-adopted-names/usan-drug-names-under-consideration In the case of some new drugs, there may not be enough published information to allow an article to be written, but for others, creating an article may be possible. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eastmain, in my experience, by the time a drug candidate has reached Phase 3 clinical trials, there's plenty of sources for it, and there are frequently enough sources by Phase 2. One of the challenges has been figuring out which names are the same. We'll find a paper about "ABC-1234", and then the little biotech company gets bought, and it becomes "BIG-1234", and then it gets a brand name and a generic name, and now we have to search under multiple names.
    For example, the first one in the recent Recommended list is https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Abenacianine, aka abenacianinum, aka VGT-309.[1] Wikipedia should have an article on abenacianinum, or at least an article on Vergent Bioscience with redirects from all the names. Since the biomedical sources for pre-approval drugs tend to be primary, and almost always affiliated with the company (one example for this drug), the Wikipedia articles are often written more from the "business" than the "medical" side: They had these activities, they got this much money invested.
    Just collecting all the names into a list could be helpful. I wonder if you'd like to talk to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology about this, as they are more specialized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain: Thanks sir. I am working on these suggestions. I will get back to you again, if I have any problems. I am overwhelmed at the amount of help I am getting from completely unknown persons. The only common thread between all of us appears to be "love of knowledge", and a "genuine desire to contribute". Thank you sir once again. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm "ma'am", rather than sir, though most of the regulars on this page are men.
    You have given me a good excuse to remind everyone how to find out. First, if you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-i18n then you can set your own gender. Remember that changing your prefs requires ticking/unticking the box plus scrolling down to click the blue Save button. (Actually changing your settings is optional, but I've done it, and if you look at the page, then the next step will make a little more sense. Whatever you choose for gender settings will be publicly visible.)
    Second, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets-gadget-section-browsing and find "Navigation Popups". This replaces the usual box when you hover over a link with a more feature-filled one. If you turn on WP:NAVPOPS and ►reload this page (don't just use the back button on your browser for the first try), then when you hover over anyone's user name, you'll see the person's gender (if any is set in preferences; blank is the default of singular they), user rights/whether they're an admin, how long they've been editing, and how many edits they've made total.
    There are other ways to find out this pref setting, but I usually find that this one is the most convenient for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch WAID. I missed that Abenacianine is the same as VGT-309. Abenacianine is the English INN, abenacianinum is Latin, and Wikipedia drug articles should be named after the English INN. I renamed VGT-309 as Abenacianine and added VGT-309 as a synonym to the drug infobox. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mandibular cancer

    I was just working on an article about a state supreme court justice who died of complications from mandibular cancer, also known as cancer of the lower jaw, and was shocked to find that there is a rather prominent form of cancer for which we have no article. I know nothing about the topic, but perhaps someone who does have knowledge of this might write about it. BD2412 T 22:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    G.J.ThomThom, are you still looking for articles your students could create?
    I see that Jaw cancer redirects to Oral cancer. Cancer of the jaw is a red link. I'm not sure if these are treated exactly the same, but I'd assume that mandibular cancer is a subtype of oral cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello
    Yes things kick off for us in the new semester starting in January so you will be hearing more from me. I will take note of this. Thank you G.J.ThomThom (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And please do pass on other cases like this if they emerge G.J.ThomThom (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @G.J.ThomThom, maybe also add Salt-sensitve hypertension to your list. We have a section at Salt and cardiovascular disease#Sodium sensitivity, but it cites sources from the previous century. It was in the news a while ago, with evidence of a connection to West African ancestry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have created {{DSM copyright}}. It's a message for talk pages, to warn editors that they can't copy the full criteria out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for copyright reasons.

    We've known about this problem for years, but there are always new editors joining, and occasionally someone will replace a description with the copyrighted text of the DSM entry. Even though they're really just trying to help, the fact is that the copyright holder could actually sue them (and would win). I'd like to give these editors the information they need to do the right thing.

    To save time and fingers, I'd like to ask someone at Wikipedia:Bot requests or Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to spam this warning onto the talk pages of all the conditions listed in List of mental disorders. (Anyone can add it manually to other pages, and if there's an item in that list that doesn't have a DSM entry, then it could be manually removed as irrelevant and unnecessary in that case.) Does anyone support or oppose this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I support IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support asking a bot to place message on talk pages (I've actually had to argue this recently here on this talk page!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support placing message and bot publishing it to talk pages. Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: I support it sir wholehearted. However, there could literally be thousands of pages, where one could unintentionally add a DSM category. Being a newbie, I was wondering, about the possibility of having a Bot, which could automatically warn an editor, that he was adding something that was copyrighted. This would be far simpler than somebody keeping on removing unwanted entries. Of course, I am not sure, if such a bot exists, or could even be created. Kindly advise. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment, we can't give real-time warnings, and since not all books are digitized, it'll never be perfect. But we do have a system that runs after you've added some text, to check for probable copyvios. Because the copyvio systems are really matching to "matches this website" – and some websites aren't copyrighted – it requires manual review after that, but we think we're catching at least most of it that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing:Thanks sir for your valuable comments. Yes, "real-time warnings" are what I meant. A system checking for "copyright violations" [copyvios] also sounds good enough. I did find a page for copyvio template [I did not know it earlier]. Thanks very much. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed: the book is copyrighted material. I support the tag and bot(s). Gobucks821 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Prostate cancer TFA February 4

    Please watchlist the article for vandalism or inappropriate edits on February 4, when it appears on Wikipedia's mainpage.

    Great work by Ajpolino ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fun Christmas paper

    Some of you might be interested in reading this:

    WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does WP:MEDRS apply for pet studies?

    See talk-page discussion at Vegetarian and vegan dog diet, a user added a trial and it was removed by another editor. My understanding is that MEDRS does also apply for biomedical claims made about pets and that we shouldn't use primary sources such as a single feeding trial. I could be wrong though; it's been a while since I edited anything related to pets. Seeking clarification on this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As pet foods and medications are regulated by the FDA under an almost identical pathway as human drug approvals and indications, I’d agree that WP:MEDRS applies.
    Could you find somebody in a veterinary Project to get their impression (since that’s more into their speciality)? Thnx, again, I agree it should apply! Gobucks821 (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    VETMED was always a small group, and I'm not sure who's around these days.
    Historically, the community has been more tolerant of primary sources being cited for content that could not possibly have any human medical application. Also, WP:ECREE ("Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence") applies to all content. If the results are surprising ("e.g., obligate carnivores are healthy on a long-term vegan diet"), then I'd want more than a primary source. If the results are WP:SKYBLUE ("Mammals need to eat food"), then a peer-reviewed primary journal article (especially its background/overview section) might be a strong enough source. In between those two extremes, you'll have to use your judgment.
    Sometimes the fastest solution is to find another source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestions and I agree. Unfortunately there are hardly any studies that have been done on vegan dog diets and no good reviews. The feeding trial in question was this one [2]. There is a serious lack of secondary sources discussing this kind of topic. I think it would be best to wait until more research has been published. I disagree with citing just one trial. We need better secondary sourcing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's recent, so we're unlikely to find it in textbooks yet. It's possible that there is some sort of popular press comment on it. Those tend to be lousy sources in a different way, though, even the ones that are technically secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request additional eyes on American Society of Anesthesiologists

    A recent addition was made to the article. The addition doubled the text length of the article and focuses on negative aspects of the organization's lobbying (sources appear sound). It would be good to get people who are familiar with articles about professional medical organizations to look at the addition to make sure it adheres to NPOV. Springee (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If the information from 2004, that the ASA “spent the second-largest sum of money on lobbying of all professional physician associations in the United States.” is true for the long term, then I would expect lobbying to take up a greater portion of their page than other pages about professional medical organisations.
    I’m concerned about the focus on recent contentious lobbying however. Sounds like the ASA been lobbying for decades with a lot of money, and if so, this section should reflect whatever those other efforts were. Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "In the 2000s, the ASA lobbied to force anesthesiologists to be in the hospital room whenever an anesthesia drug was administered to patients during colonoscopies " is unreferenced. NYT article does not mention it. T g7 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NYT article does not mention propofol either. T g7 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a topic that is outside my normal area of knowledge but the new material, made the article shift from what seemed like kind of a high level, boiler plate description to something that looked like an attack article trying to pass as encyclopedic. Like I said, some level of content may make sense but not 50% of the article. I will note that a recent search for articles that mentioned the organization didn't say anything about these controversies. This suggests the material is getting too much weight. Still, I think getting more eyes on the topic would be best. Springee (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also there is lack of context, as the Tampa Bay Times article points out that the Nurse Anesthetist society spent a lot of money lobbying in opposition to the ASA. And the NYT article points out that the *third* highest spender in lobbying was the nurse anesthetist society. And there is no attention paid to the ASA's contention that their lobbying effort is to ensure patient safety. In my opinion, it reads more like an advocacy piece than an encyclopedic piece. That being said, there are some good points here- for example, pointing out the role of money and lobbying in health care in the US is very important. I think the battle between the nurse anesthetists and the anesthesiologists is noteworthy but it would need more context. T g7 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the part about the anomalous billing does not represent fully what is stated in the references. T g7 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, one of the sources states "the authors have stressed that their findings should not be interpreted to indicate fraud because fraud involves intent, which could not be determined." So in my opinion, this is somewhat misrepresentating the reference. T g7 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1266781108"