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 2804:14d:5c59:8300::1000 (talk) at 07:37, 16 June 2019 (→Requesting stub article for "embryotoxic" / "embryotoxicity": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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

    Trying to get an article out of draft space and ready for review

    I was wondering if someone would be able to read my article and give any feedback so that it doesn't get put back into draftspace

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MitoQ

    Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice would be to stop trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Per WP:MEDRS most of this draft is based on unreliable/unsuitable sources. You also have a problem per WP:PROMONAME. Alexbrn (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I able to ask what makes it sound like a promotion? I am using only peer reviewed articles and none are primary resources so I am not quite sure how it is unsuitable. Will look into changing the username if possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The first source cited isn't even MEDLINE indexed. The second hardly mentions MitoQ and where it does notes concerns about toxicity, which the draft article strangely omits to mention. With your COI you are not in a position to be writing any of this stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MitoPower, we usually want review articles, not peer-reviewed original articles. That means sources such as PMID 30116495, PMID 30505656, PMID 30820778, etc., rather than sources like this article in Nature. There are more than a dozen MEDLINE-indexed review articles that have mentioned this particular compound during just the last few years.
    In the bigger picture, it might make more sense for Wikipedia to have an article about mitochondrial-targeting antioxidants, rather than separate articles for all of the possible subjects. I suppose that it depends on whether you see the subject primarily as a matter of "science" or of "business": from the scientific perspective, the class is more important than the individual examples; from the business perspective, two equally effective compounds could have very different commercial outcomes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that. Stupid question, but is there a way that we know that the article is MEDLINE-indexed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Would need to move to the generic name for starters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mitoquinone mesylate, perhaps? There are several possible names, but that's easy to handle if/when the article moves to mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MEDLINE-indexed reviews. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=MitoQ+review QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for all your help. Will go back and try and fix what I can and get more advice when I need it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitoPower (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Found it "MitoQ is a form of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) having the same identical active component as CoQ10 (Ubiquinone)."
    Basically this should be redirected to coenzyme Q10 which I have done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not at all certain that is correct. This is not just CoQ10 with a different adjuvant. It's a different molecule (a different number of carbons). We don't normally merge different chemicals just because the active end of the molecule is the same. (If we did, then we'd have one article at Β-lactam antibiotic and nothing about any of the individual Penicillins.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref says "Since then, a series of TPP–antioxidant conjugates have been synthesized: TPP–ubiquinone conjugates (e.g., MitoQ), TPP–carboxy–proxyl conjugates (e.g., MitoCP), and TPP–vitamin E analogues conjugates (e.g., MitoE)."
    So technically it is a "triphenylphosphonium (TTP)–ubiquinone conjugate". So the TPP appears primarily for getting it through the mitochondrial membrane. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay so looked at this stuff further. There have been a total of 4 clinical trials of this stuff per pubmed. Three is healthy people and one in people with Parkinsons. The only trial in a disease state found "We showed no difference between MitoQ and placebo on any measure of PD progression."[1]

    So no this is not like the situation with B lactams. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad that we can agree that "ubiquinone conjugated to something" is not the same as "ubiquinone all by itself". The salient question is whether "ubiquinone conjugated to something" should be redirected to "ubiquinone all by itself", or if it perhaps ought to be redirected to an article about the multiple types of "ubiquinone conjugated to something".
    One way to think about that question is what you're going to say when the redirect is put up for deletion at WP:RFD on the grounds that (a) it's not mentioned in the target article (which IMO is a poor reason for deleting it, but it is one that's rather popular among certain MFD regulars), and (b) is actually a different chemical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    QuackGuru, I've just gotten through all this. Starting seven RfCs on one article in a dozen days makes it hard to keep up with responses. Could you slow down a bit on new RfCs, please? HLHJ (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Electric smoking system

    See Talk:Electric smoking system#Aerosol and smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Marketing of electronic cigarettes

    See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes#Proposal to redirect. Is the page a POV Fork? QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Electronic cigarette

    See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Nicotine and Passive vaping sections. Should both sections be deleted? QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Electric smoking system

    See Talk:Electric smoking system#First sentence. Should we include the word "smoke", "nicotine" or "tar" in the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Article scope

    An RfC on the scope of the article needs input, along with a logically-connected move request. Of course, the move request will close before the scope RfC... HLHJ (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Electric smoking system

    See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Re-RfC_on_IQOS_content. QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Papanicolaou stain

    Papanicolaou stain(showing low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion from a Pap test)

    I been working on the Papanicolaou stain page trying to add references and generally clean it up. I tried to make it clear that this was not the page for the Pap test or Pap smear and that this page is about the stain which helps a pathologist make a diagnosis, and not test that give a certain result. There are still a few references missing in the "results" section (although I have removed some unsourced things). I'm hoping to have some other folks take a look at it and make any changes they feel appropriate. I wasn't planning to work on this page, but I felt that I should add some references; then I began to have a "you touch it, you buy it" feeling. There are certainly a few rough areas. Waughd (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    might be useful ref[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I added it, plus one or two others, I removed the last few unsourced bits, and then removed the citations needed tag. Waughd (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a Wikipedia Library Card?

    If you're working on content creation, please go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/ and see whether any of those sources would be useful to you.

    Access is limited for some of these sources, so please consider signing up for just one to get started, see how much you use it, and then go back for more if it's working for you. If you want to coordinate a few, then these are currently available (at least one subscription available) and relevant for this group:

    For most of these, to get access, you need to have made at least 500 edits (all wikis). Most people watching this page probably meet that standard. Please don't apply if you have access to the same collection at school/work. For example, if you're at a university whose library subscribes to the BMJ, then please use the university resources, and leave that account to someone else.

    I encourage you to try this out for at least one, even if you're not quite sure if it will work for you. Anyone who does content creation could benefit from this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    great info, thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Template Medical Resources - modification

    I am seeking comments for this RfC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Medical_resources#RfC_Pull_classification_codes_from_WD A sandbox new version of the template has an update to include SNOMED CT links. They come from WikiData but can be overridden. There are also tests to see if it works (and it does). If you have feedback, please post those to the RfC page (first link in this paragraph). EncycloABC (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible similar articles? Femoropopliteal bypass surgery and Popliteal bypass surgery

    From the article Popliteal bypass surgery, "Popliteal bypass surgery , more specifically known as femoral popliteal bypass surgery" sounds very similar to Femoropopliteal bypass surgery and from the lead paragraphs from both articles, looks similar as well. If they are talking about the same surgery, it may be good to merge the articles. Thanks! --Xaiver0510 (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Femoropopliteal bypass surgery should be redirect to Popliteal bypass surgery as it's the better article, although, I'm pretty sure fem-pop bypass is the full name. Ian Furst (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Xaiver0510 thanks and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SFP course

    Hi WikiProject Medicine,

    Starting this week, Wiki Education will be working with the Society of Family Planning (SFP) to improve articles about abortion and contraception through our Wiki Scholars & Scientists program. Their members, who are medical professionals and medical educators, will go through a 12-week process of learning about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS), evaluating articles, making minor edits, and finally drafting a contribution to an article. They will be working in sandboxes at first and will receive feedback before incorporating into mainspace. In effect, it will have a similar appearance of a course project, except the participants are not students but professionals. We will, of course, be exercising caution throughout the process given the controversial nature of the subject area and the challenges new users often encounter when starting to edit biomedical content.

    Participants will receive an honorarium from SFP. Here are the steps we're taking to ensure adherence to best practices for COI/paid editing:

    • We have talked with SFP extensively to ensure they understand Wikipedia's rules about paid editing and COI. They do not expect edits to particular articles or for participants to push any particular point of view. Their interest is in improving public knowledge of the field in general.
    • Participants sign a contract with Wiki Education in which they agree to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including COI.
    • Participants will disclose their honorarium and participation in this course on their user page.
    • As with any such course, we cover Wikipedia policies and guidelines in depth. In this case, we plan to spend additional time on COI, and will spend extra time in sandboxes.

    The list of editors will be available once they create their account on our Dashboard page here: SFP Wiki Scholars

    We are obviously keeping a close eye on their work, but if you see any problematic edits, please feel free to flag them to me or to Elysia (Wiki Ed), who is also helping support the courses. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. Many of the topics are protected and under edit restrictions User:Ryan (Wiki Ed). Likely all changes should be discussed one by one on the talk page until they become more experienced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing this project with the WPMED community. JenOttawa (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Pineapple#Merge_Pineapple_juice

    Pineapple Juice

    Pineapple juice had some very poor supported medical claims. After trimming them there is not much left. Have thus proposed merging it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comprehensive open release of fully identifiable medical data and biomedical hackathons

    This link is about a collaborative biomedical research event hosted by a nonprofit called Silicon Valley Artificial Intelligence: https://sv.ai/undiagnosed-1

    That webpage covers a research case involving a specific patient – who happens to be my brother – that signed an open data release of virtually all of his medical records (>200 pages of documents), proteomic data, metabolomic data, and genomic data (i.e., his sequenced exome and hybrid second/third-generation sequencing of his entire genome) for the purpose of permitting ~200 researchers from across the globe (e.g., USA, Canada, UK, India, Japan) access to his medical data during a hackathon in which they attempted to identify the biomolecular basis of his condition using statistical and data science (AI and machine learning) methods.

    My brother isn't at all concerned about his privacy, so there was no attempt to deidentify his medical data or even hide his identity from the public (e.g., his first name, medical history, and face are all included on that webpage and all over SVAI's twitter feed); going to the event to collaborate with researchers by answering questions sort of obviates the point in doing that. One of the recommendations from that event was for his family members (e.g., me) to have their whole exomes and/or genomes sequenced and included in the analysis; so, I too am going to end up openly releasing identifiable genomic and metabolomic data and possibly a few medical records as well.

    I'm bringing this up here since I have a couple questions.

    • Biomedical research hackathons are relatively common events and many (including the one for my brother) are conducted in collaboration with the NIH; these seem to generate a lot of news coverage, but I can't seem to find anything more than a passing mention of these on Wikipedia. The only tangentially relevant article about these that I found was Big Data to Knowledge (@BlueRasberry: I saw you created that). Aren't these sufficiently notable events to merit coverage somewhere?
    • This isn't the first time that identifiable medical data has been released by a patient on this scale into an open research database (e.g., SVAI's previous patient did this: "Paseman is adamant. “What I want to do is tell people who have rare, terminal, untreatable diseases is HIPAA is not really a big deal. We’re almost dead anyway, who cares? Let’s come up with a way to release all this information out there so people can use it.”). I know that a large database of fully identifiable biomedical data (e.g., pan-omics data, medical records, and images) could be used to do a lot of high-impact clinical research as well as other interesting genetics research (e.g., images of people paired with their sequenced genomes could be used to analyze how genetic variation accounts for differences in body/facial structure). Does anyone know of an initiative to create such a database? Found https://pgp.med.harvard.edu/participate - that’s exactly what I had in mind, but 400 whole genomes is a tiny database. There are ~300000 SRA-indexed human WGS.
    • I'm curious to know if anyone is aware of another hackathon or research event like this that attempted to "diagnose" (i.e., identify the pathophysiology of) a patient with an undiagnosed rare and presumably unclassified disease before; couldn't seem to find one from googling. Given the amount of time and resources involved, I can't imagine these would be common. This approach to diagnosis – and any other type of patient-centered hackathon for that matter – really takes the idea of precision medicine to another level. It blows my mind that all of that concerted effort was just the first round of work on a molecular diagnosis.

    Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. Am not aware of any other events. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never heard of this before, and have never heard of an even like it. But it's wild. Do you see a path for Wikipedia to fit in? Ian Furst (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2019
    Hmm. Not really, although I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to float the idea by them. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this connected to the Undiagnosed Diseases Network? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they operate on recommendations and patient applications. The only point of contact they have with the broader undiagnosed/rare disease community is my brother, who has an extensive network and is a very outspoken advocate for them. The way that he and SVAI met was by recommendation of the two people listed in the acknowledgements section of [3]; John already had whole exome and short-read whole genome sequencing and was looking for a research sponsor for PacBio long-read WGS, which is very expensive. SVAI was looking for someone who had a challenging/complex case history, was connected to a patient community, wanted to help organize more research for that disease category, and was willing to open source their data. My brother agreed to open source and SVAI agreed to finance the sequencing, but they ended up getting my brother 7 new or updated test instruments, including a better short-read sequence and two types of long-reads (PacBio and Oxford Nanopore), worth about $20000 in total.
    The UDN was a dead end when my brother approached them several years ago. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My brother was talking at length at that hackathon about what he thought was the best approach to molecular diagnostics for rare disease patients individually and in aggregate; apparently he stuck a chord with a lot of people. The Indian woman who led the team from MedGenome contacted my brother and offered to provide him $6000 of free short-read scRNA-Seq on samples from various tissues (i.e., multiple transcriptome sequences). This morning, a researcher from Stanford's Undiagnosed program who participated in the hackathon offered to onboard him there, generate a few more long-read instruments and run algorithms on them, and then run the validation tests that were mentioned at the hackathon as well as validation tests on what their new algorithms implicate; apparently, all of that testing will be free as well.

    @WhatamIdoing: Some of the researchers at the event were talking to my brother about the possibility that it might be Marfan, but the clinical phenotype and genetic variant didn't seem to fit.

    @Ian Furst and Evolution and evolvability: Following up on what Ian asked above, would the Wikiversity:WikiJournal of Medicine accept primary research submissions pertaining to various applications of AI, bioinformatics, biostatistics, and computational biology to genomics and/or molecular diagnostics? https://f1000research.com/ sponsored SVAI's recent event, so they promoted publishing team research in that open access journal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I realize that the current editorial staff might not have the technical background to referee submissions involving AI, machine learning, and/or bioinformatics (hackathons involve the formation of collaborative cross-functional teams of individuals with differing domain knowledge/expertise, who then work together to create software for a particular purpose); assuming they're interested and the subject matter isn't an issue for the journal, I'm sure someone from that group would be willing to help review submissions as an associate editor. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of my expertise, but maybe User:Ozzie10aaaa can comment. Ian Furst (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the best individual(by far) to ask would be @Evolution and evolvability:--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Question about Template:Abnormal_clinical_and_laboratory_findings_for_blood

    Hi there. I'm a new editor, so sorry if this is a silly question. I've been working on an article about an abnormal blood smear finding, Draft:Critical green inclusions, and if the article is accepted at AfC I'd like to add it to Template:Abnormal_clinical_and_laboratory_findings_for_blood. However, the title of this template includes ICD-10 codes, so does that mean that only findings listed in ICD-10 are allowed in the template? And of course, any feedback on my draft would be appreciated. :) Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't comment on the template use, but I'd suggest using the medical tests manual of style to format the article as it currently exists. Nice work, and thank you for the contribution. Ian Furst (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help Refining Our Wikipedia Page

    Hello community,

    I am writing to request help from any experienced Wikipedia editors, especially those who are familiar with medicine and hospitals. I work at Cooley Dickinson Hospital in Northampton, Mass., and after much frustration was able to create our basic Wikipedia page here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooley_Dickinson_Hospital

    Wikipedia has kept its weight/relevance rather low, I fear, since I am an employee and it considers me as a bit too close to be an objective author, though I strove to keep the material completely unbiased and simply factual/historical. Some editors have gone in since I originally created it and helped out a bit, but I would like to get it closer to our affiliate Mass General Hospital's page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_General_Hospital

    ...which I sort of modeled ours on (even though we are a much smaller hospital). If anyone can help improve it; i.e. further expand the info box, add photos and our logo (which looks much like MGH's), I can provide files and would very much appreciate the experienced help.

    I am a fairly tech-savvy person and happy to help however I can, but an inexperienced Wikipedia author/editor, so any help would be much appreciated!

    Thank you, Tom

    Thomas Sturm Digital Media Coordinator Cooley Dickinson Health Care 413-582-2262 Office tsturm@cooleydickinson.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.61 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Tom, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Wikipedia works differently than a typical website; it's all about communal effort and collaboration. The Mass General page has evolved over 15 years, with contributions from some 313 (volunteer) editors, and >400 edits. I would suggest that you create an account, and make some edits to pages that your not affiliated with to understand how pages evolve, and how the community works. In the mean time, give it a bit of time and (if the page receives pageviews) people will improve it. Feel free to leave your username here, and we can link some "how to" information. Ian Furst (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I second what Ian has said, and I will add that one of the first things you will realise if you work on articles on Wikipedia is how dependent we are on sources. We rely on finding sources and basing our content on that. If there are no sources, we can't write the article. One of the things you could do to help is to find sources (articles, interviews, press stories) about the hospital that would be interesting to our general audience. There may also be more statistics that you could find sources for, and you could take photographs and upload them to Commons (see Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard) so that they can be used in the article. You can link to anything you find on the article's talk page (Talk:Cooley Dickinson Hospital) and other editors will help you to use those resources. If you have any problems, please feel free to ask again here. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Merger proposal - "Adrenaline" and "Epinephrine (medication)"

    I have proposed that the articles Adrenaline and Epinephrine (medication) be merged. Discussion and input is welcome here. --Kwekubo (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting stub article for "embryotoxic" / "embryotoxicity"

    The term "embryotoxic" occurs a few dozen articles, and "embryotoxicity" in two or three.

    - https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=Embryotoxic&advancedSearch-current={}&ns0=1

    Can we please make a stub article defining these terms? (Or make a redirect to an appropriate definition in an existing article.)

    (I'm not asking for a definition of these terms here, I'm asking that a stub or redirect be created.)

    Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=902059041"