Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine

Wikiproject: Preclinical Medicine Welcome to the Preclinical Medicine project page. The project aims and businesses are outlined below: Please visit the talk page to discuss guidelines and make new ones!

News

Biochemistry and protein are nominees for MCOTW. Check out the wikipedia: WikiProject Clinical medicine/MCOTF page for more info. PhatRita 14:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Put up category:fingers for deletion and moved all the stuff in there to the new hand category.

The anatomical position page is complete and is basically a complement to every anatomy article in our project. PhatRita 18:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

About the project

Origins

This Preclinical Medicine Wikiprokect was created as a partner to Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine. The idea for this project sparked off the newly created Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/MCOTF. The two projects are closely associated with this project.

Goals

Preclinical medical sciences, including human anatomy, human physiology, biochemistry, pharmacology, pathology, histology and many more related medical fields are very important as a foundation base for clinical relevance and application. The state of many of the basic anatomy and physiology pages is therefore a bit of a shock. There are some key goals of the project:

• Improving the lack of organisation of material - there are many pages which have severe redirectional problems. Examples include upper limb, which redirects to arm. Although correct in lay terms, it is incorrect anatomically, and therefore contextually, that the upper limb is not the arm.
• Improving the lack of agreement on whether to use lay or professional terms, eg "anterior" vs "in front of". Many pages have an ecletic mix of these terms which are difficult to read by lay users and professional users.
• Increase the number and content of articles - many articles are stubs and requires an expansion plan. This explansion would be best done under consideration of a global organisation, to avoid a complex minefield in the future.
• Adding a sense of clinical relevance - the importance of knowing basic medical science would ultimately be directed towards clinical application or knowledge. Therefore lay and professional users would appreciate an increased interlinking between relevant terms, eg wrist and carpal tunnel syndrome.
• Drum up enthusiasm - the medical pages are updated periodically usually by single users. This editing can lead (understandably) to errors. This project could provide other users to form a from of internal peer reviewing system.
• Distinguishing mixed knowledge pages - many pages have animal and human physiology/anatomy mixed in. This is difficult to read.
• Increasing the number of images - many anatomy pages are pictureless.

It is hoped that this project and the medical collaborations of the week project can add to the depth and validity of preclinical medicine.

If you would like to participate in improving this aspect of wikipedia, however much time or effort you would like to contribute, please leave your name below, in the participants section. Thanks!

Scope

I hope to initially start on the anatomy and physiology pages and work around that. These are the pages in the biggest mess and require the most attention.

Guidelines

Redirection and links

There should be a hierarchy in order of generality. In similar fashion to the clinical medicine guidelines here, I would suggest:

1. Anatomy
2. Human Anatomy
3. Regional Anatomy (in tradition with anatomical learning these are upper limb, lower limb, thorax, back, head and neck, abdomen and perineum)
4. Specific Anatomy (for upper limb, for example, this would be shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, hand.

Disambiguation should occur at each stage. For each of the stages there should be something to point out more generalised, parent anatomy.

• At the regional anatomy level, for example, upper limb

"The upper limb is the anatomical region covering the arm, shoulder.....and lastly the hand." In this way, there would be no need to go into particular detail except general information about the upper limb.

• At the specific anatomy level, for example the shoulder

"In human anatomy, the shoulder is the region between the arm and the torso...."

There should also be a clear opening line such as "in human anatomy" to make sure what is being said is in fact human.

Terminology

This is in much debate. I would suggest using the following format, but this is open to discussion, like everything in wikipedia:

Write the entire article in the professional terminology. However, at the top of the page, list a few quick definitions of the words used, write what these words mean and place a link to the anatomical terms page. (The bulk of these cases will be anatomical terms such as superior or superficial)

So for example, "this article uses a few professional terms to explain certain anatomical details. These words only apply when the body is in the anatomical position, ie standing up with hands facing forward. These terms are:

• superior - meaning above
• inferior - meaning below
• abduction - meaning the movement of the limb towards the body
• medial - towards the midline

Please visit the anatomical position page for more detailed information. "the human head is the most superior aspect of the human body......"

In fact a template could be used here.

My reasoning for this is that

• it maintains a correct level of information. If an article delves into anatomical relations, these words will be used and it is above normal levels of information anyway.
• keeps the structure consistent and readable by lay and professional users.
• keeps the content accurate. terms such as "above" can often be misleading.
• Sometimes there is only that professional word in anatomy, eg dorsiflexion of the foot would be "the raising of the foot in an upward direction towards the leg", quite a handful.

Categories

Anatomy is a total mess. I suggest for anatomy:

Anatomy
<- upper limb anatomy/head and neck etc

<- hand/forearm etc

<- organ systems

<- nervous system/musculoskeletal etc

<- peripheral nervous system/ central nervous system etc

<- cranial nerve I/ II/ III / radial nerve etc

<-tissues

<- adipose/skin etc

<- histology & radiology

where <- is a subcategory of.

I would suggest that articles have category of

• a regional anatomical area, such as head and neck
• if applicable, a more specific anatomical area, such as brain (somethings traverse the course of the body or region, so it may not be applicable here)
• and, if appicable, listing in the relevant organ system

so for example, 1.cranial nerve eight, the vestibulocochlear, would be in the

• head and neck
• since it traverses the entirety of head and neck, no regional category
• and since it is a nerve, it belongs in the peripheral nervous system's cranial nerves category.

2.the thenar eminence

• upper limb anatomy
• located in the head, so hand category
• no specific organ system applies, so nothing here

3.the 2nd metatarsal, fracture of which is commonly known as stress fracture

• lower limb anatomy
• loacted in the foot, so foot category
• a bone, so, skeletal system

consistency is key, so if anyone has an objection, please discuss in the talk page.

Things to do

Anatomy

The head has been chosen as a feature COTW

Physiology

• Human physiology is a nominee for the new medical COTW

Biochemistry

• Biochemistry needs some work, and has been nominated for medical COTW

Primary -ology articles

Mr.Bip has suggested that the first thing to do is to develop primary -ology articles such as histology and embryology (stub). This would make our job a lot easier when trying to sort out organisation later, and help add more interest. Therefore the following list is the articles which could do with expanding. Add to the list if you wish. See the template section below fpr a notice sign that you can stick on these articles. If anyone wants to help in writing these articles feel free to add your name to the subjects, or alternatively go write.

• embryology
• histology
• Cell biology
• microbiology (encompasses a lot of pre-existing articles, but the article is basically a stub Mr.Bip)

Organization?

Since this project is preclinical medicine (rather than clinical medicine) perhaps we could look to the curricula of medical schools across the world to find ideas about how to organize the material, and to find out what is missing. It might make more sense than adding topics piecemeal. For instance, here's one example:

Year 1

• Gross Anatomy and Radiology
• Molecules, Cells, and Tissues
• Pathobiology & Host defense
• Neuroscience and Human behavior
• Practice of medicine

Year 2

• Cardiovascular and Pulmonary
• Renal/Fluid/Electrolyte
• Gastro-intestinal/Nutrition
• Endocrine/Reproduction
• Derm/Heme/Musculoskel
• Great Syndromes

Or perhaps there is some international standard we could use for organizing the material (sort of like the ICD codes for diseases and symptoms). --Arcadian 12:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt there is an international standard. However, whatever topics we choose, there is bound to be plenty of overlap, especially between physiology and cellular biochemistry. I would just suggest sticking with the anatomy phys and cellular/biochem, because most courses would reflect the long history of teaching medicine this way. How about a set science tree, like below, which everyone can agree on and add correct linkage to?

1. Anatomy

• general aspects
• Upper limb
• Lower limb
• Head and Neck
• Back
• Abdomen and Perineum
• Thorax
• radiology
• histology

2. Physiology

• cardiovascular
• neurophys
• endocrinology
• pulmonology etc
• pathology?

3. Cellular/molecular

• genetics

mendelian

nucleic acid biochememistry

replication

transcription

translation

• Cell biology/microbiology
• Molecular biology

Cell signaling (signal transduction)

Cell cycle

• Biochemistry

Enzyme kinetics

Protein structures

Catalytic strategies

Common motifs (Rossman fold, etc.)

This is a tricky topic, what does everyone think? PhatRita 00:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

PhatRita - I like your idea of structuring our activities with a "typical" medical school curriculum, whatever we decide that is. I will do some research this weekend and get a tree down for the cellular/molecular side of things. I added a few things off the top of my head to the list. Mr.Bip 05:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

the credit should go to arcadian. I just made the initial list. PhatRita 14:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this list is a good initial guideline. I'm gonna move this stuff into the talk page. PhatRita 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Templates

I've made a couple of templates for this project. Firstly there's the organisaional warning. Type in {{WP:PCM}}, (case sensitive), for this:

For the current list of potentially controversial requested moves, see § Current discussions.

"Wikipedia:RM" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:RM (disambiguation).

For detailed guidance on how and when to move a page, see Wikipedia:Moving a page.

Commenting on a requested move

All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion regarding a requested page move. There are a number of standards that Wikipedians should practice in such discussions:

• When editors recommend a course of action, they write Support or Oppose in bold text, which is done by surrounding the word with three single quotes on each side, e.g. '''Support'''.
• Comments or recommendations are added on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *) and signed by adding ~~~~ to the end. Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets.
• The article itself should be reviewed before any recommendation is made; do not base recommendations solely on the information supplied by other editors. It may also help to look at the article's edit history. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations, as well as prior move requests. They may contain relevant arguments and useful information.
• Vested interests in the article should be disclosed per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI.

When participating, please consider the following:

• Editors should make themselves familiar with the article titling policy at Wikipedia:Article titles.
• Other important guidelines that set forth community norms for article titles include Wikipedia:Disambiguation, specific naming conventions, and the manual of style.
• The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.
• Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.
• Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.
• Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between <s> and </s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".

Please remember that reasonable editors will sometimes disagree, but that arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers an argument that does not explain how the move request is consistent with policies and guidelines, a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion may be useful. On the other hand, a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider using a dispute resolution process.

Closing a requested move

Any uninvolved editor in good standing may close a move request. Please read the closing instructions for information on how to close a move request. The Simple guide to closing RM discussions details how to actually close a requested move discussion.

Relisting a requested move

Relisting a discussion moves the request out of the backlog up to the current day in order to encourage further input. The decision to relist a discussion is best left to uninvolved experienced editors upon considering, but declining, to close the discussion. In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing. Users relisting a debate which has already been relisted, or relisting a debate with a substantial discussion, should write a short explanation on why they did not consider the debate sufficient to close. While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate.

Relisting should be done using {{subst:RM relist}}, which automatically includes the relister's signature, and which must be placed at the very end of the initial request after the move requester's signature (and subsequent relisters' signatures).

When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion.

If discussion has become stale, or it seems that discussion would benefit from more input of editors versed in the subject area, consider more widely publicizing the discussion, such as by notifying WikiProjects of the discussion using the template {{RM notification}}. Banners placed at the top of the talk page hosting the move request can often be used to identify WikiProjects suitable for notification.

See also

• Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts, which includes a list of recently closed, as well as open discussions

Please stick this in talk pages of articles, as it is a large and cumbersome template.

The second is the expansion warning that you can stick on the article page. Type in {{medexp}}, (case senistive again), for this:

This article is a prime candidate for expansion by the Preclinical Medicine/Basic medical sciences project. Please visit our page for like minded editors to help edit this page.

Participants

This is a mammoth task, and even if you can give only advice or support please list your name below. Lay users are encouraged to participate as their contributions as reviewers of articles are highly valued. I would welcome any help. If you want to just stick around and see what happens feel free. If you wish, you can also state what subjects you would like to help or specialise in:

1. PhatRita (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry)
2. Knowledge Seeker (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry)
3. Eleassar my talk (everything what interests me: currently physiology, patology and immunology)
4. Arcadian
5. Mr.Bip (basic biology: Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, Genetics, Neurobiology, etc. anatomy and physiology too)
6. Avocado: I'll volunteer as a layperson to review articles for comprehensibility: just leave a message on my talk page listing the article you want looked at and I'll take a peek when I get a chance.