Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 173

Archive 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

Archive 173

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.

• 2-Aminoadipic-2-oxoadipic aciduria
• Alpha-2-plasmin inhibitor deficiency
• Bosma arhinia microphthalmia syndrome
• Bile acid synthesis disorders
• Draft:Colchicine poisoning
• Draft:Al-Kaissi Syndrome

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Prostate cancer TFA February 4

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

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 4, 2025

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

Fun Christmas paper

Some of you might be interested in reading this:

• Cro, Suzie; Phillips, Rachel (2024-12-14). "All I want for Christmas…is a precisely defined research question". Trials. 25 (1): 784. doi:10.1186/s13063-024-08604-w. ISSN 1745-6215. PMC 11645783. PMID 39673058.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

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

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)

Thanks, I will take a look. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I will take a look too. Thank you Scriptir (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

Discussion at COVID-19 Lab Leak Theory about inclusion of anti-Chinese racism in lead

Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Should_we_mention_in_the_lead_the_"increased_anti-Chinese_racism." Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

rT3 and T3 testing

Hi all,

Does anyone know where I’d find a MEDRS source that documents whether high rT3 levels can interfere with Free T3 immunoassay and/or ultrafiltration LC-MSMS tests?

All I can find is information that Free T3 immunoassays are prone to interference and that Free T3 affects rT3 radioimmunoassay tests, but no information about vice-versa.

Edit: This primary source seems concerned that rT3 and T3 could interfere with tests of each other because they are isobars of each other, but satisfied that there are methods to separate them in LC-MS/MS tests. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-019-01724-2

I'll keep looking for more info about current immunoassays and for secondary sources.

Daphne Morrow (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

rT3 is rarely tested in clinical practice, and the utility of it outside of the context of central hypothyroidism vs euthyroid syndrome is highly debated in research. I'm not sure if or where information on this specefically could be found. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had gathered this from my sources so far, it’s good to have it confirmed by others.

I was thinking maybe someone might know a pathology manual or some testing data from the original verification of the tests? Daphne Morrow (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thank you, that makes sense. Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If a pharmaceutical company took the trouble of developing and distributing a new dosage form, this implies there is a medical need for it. As long as there is a reliable source that documents a use case for a particular dosage form, I think it is fair game for an "available forms" section. This is precisely what this section is for. Boghog (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help.

Further to the question about the regular vs salt forms of levothyroxine and liothyronine, the information in the drugbox is inconsistent (eg. the image for levothyroxine shows the regular form, the image for liothyronine shows the salt form; the CAS for liothyronine goes to C15H12I3NO4, the pubchem link goes to C15H13I3NNaO5). Should I try to standardise these and if so, should I try to make all the information about the regular form or the salt form? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

My preference would be to standardize structures in {{Infobox drug}} on the parent and not salt forms. Per WP:MEDTITLE, drug articles should be named after the INN. In turn:

An INN is usually designated for the active part of the molecule only, to avoid the multiplication of entries in cases where several salts, esters, etc. are actually used.

— World Health Organization, "Guidance on INN", Health products policy and standards

Boghog (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you that makes perfect sense. I’ll put cleaning up the box info on my todo list.

Are you intending to publish Thyroxine? Is there anything I should do to help? Daphne Morrow (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Boghog (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You’re the best, thank you so much for this. Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Natural childbirth NPOV issues

As I am not an expert, I want to bring to your attention that the article natural childbirth has NPOV issues. See Talk:Natural_childbirth#WP:NPOV_issues. Note also the article Unassisted childbirth describing a related practice. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

NYT article does not mention propofol either. T g7 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Someone just reverted my edit to this. Could others please take a look? Thank you. T g7 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

When I WhoIs’d the IP that reverted you, it says it belongs the the ASA? The geolocate goes quite close to their headquarters. COI editor? Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Viral spread of rumour about HMPV

There's an informal RM at Talk:HMPV outbreak in Northeast Asia (2024–present)#Proposal to Update Article Title. I suggest that people from this wikiproject add some arguments for or against the proposal to rename the article, or with specific proposals for a new name. Boud (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. The article needs more care and attention. People are misunderstanding what is happening and the article mostly relies on non-WP:MERDS-compliant sourcing. I've just removed a bunch of content and done some re-arranging. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

HMPV outbreak in East Asia (2024–present)

As mentioned above, HMPV outbreak in East Asia (2024–present) is a new article with a lot of misunderstanding among editors and insufficient attention to WP:MEDRS.

I've already run into two editing disputes: about the infobox at Talk:HMPV_outbreak_in_East_Asia_(2024–present)#Infobox and about the use of non-MEDRS sources at Talk:HMPV_outbreak_in_East_Asia_(2024–present)#Cases_in_the_West. You may or may not agree with my positions, of course! But more input would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Mpox naming

Can we get some more input over at Talk:Mpox#formerly_vs_also Moxy🍁 00:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Colostrum health claims NPOV concerns

The colostrum article seems to be NPOV and promotional. I am going to look at it. Would appreciate others as well. T g7 (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

And please do pass on other cases like this if they emerge G.J.ThomThom (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

Thank you. I have added it to the list. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand, cancer of the mandible would not be classified as a type of oral cancer or even head and neck cancer. Oral cancer generally refers to squamous cell carcinoma (a soft tissue cancer arising in the epithelial layer). As for cancer arising in the hard tissue of the jaw, I don't know exactly how they would be classified... maybe redirect to Bone tumor is best for now.

As the current article for oral cancer states: "Other cancers can occur in the mouth (such as bone cancer, lymphoma, or metastatic cancers from distant sites) but are also considered separately from oral cancers."

Also I don't know if there is a need for a dedicated article for each bone in terms of cancer. That is because I guess each article would be quite similar when it comes to the list of possible cancers which may originate or spread to that bone. The mandible is however possibly an exception because of the existence of that group of cancers related to the tissues which form the teeth (see Odontogenic tumor). Moribundum (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Another quick note: as far as I am aware, cancer originating in the hard tissues of the jaw is significantly less prominent compared to squamous cell carcinoma of the soft tissues. I don't think it is the case that the encyclopedia is missing some very important category of cancer here. Moribundum (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Split and DAB at Chief cell

Hi folks, I've started a discussion on turning Chief cell into a disambiguation page over at Talk:Chief cell. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Input needed regarding lead image for Parkinson's disease

I'm currently going a GAN review for the page which is how I got involved with this conversation. Seeing as the nominator has also expressed intents to take this article to FAC I think additional opinions could be helpful here.

I'd appreciate any opinions over at Talk:Parkinson's disease#Are the first illustrations helpful?.

To summarize the issue, there are questions of wether or not the lead image for Parkinson's disease is an appropriate visual for the disease. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

DSM copyright warnings

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)

I support IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

I support placing message and bot publishing it to talk pages. Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

Agreed: the book is copyrighted material. I support the tag and bot(s). Gobucks821 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: The nice folks at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks have added the template to the talk pages on ~200 articles about mental health. From here, expect two things:

• To need to add it yourself, manually, to other articles. Generally speaking, if the DSM has diagnostic criteria for the article's subject, then this template belongs on the article's talk page.
• For editors to slowly notice this. WP:Nobody reads the directions, especially not right away, so spreading the word will take some time. But over time, we should see fewer potential copyvios being added, and more of them being quickly removed. Remember: If you have to revert someone adding the DSM diagnostic criteria (or anything else that's copyrighted), the link for how to report this is in the template. (The admins WP:REVDEL the copyvio edit so nobody will accidentally restore it later.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC about TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine monoamine release

Hello, all. Just fyi, I received a random Rfc notification due to my signup for the Feedback request service. You can find the Rfc discussion on TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine monoamine release here. (This is just a notification and not an endorsement; in particular, I have not checked it for WP:RFCBEFORE compliance.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions is the more pointful discussion. At a glance, it looks like three editors there know (more or less) what they're talking about, and that they're basically fighting over whether the "old" theory or someone's (a researcher's, not a WIkipedian's) "new" theory should be the dominant one in Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Category name confusing Category:Syndromes of unknown causes

The name of category Category:Syndromes of unknown causes seems grammatically wrong. Shouldn't it be either

• Syndromes of unknown cause

or

• Syndromes with unknown causes

For comparison, see Category:Ailments of unknown cause and Category:Syndromes by cause etc

Noleander (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree the wording is odd. For consistency I think "Syndromes of unknown cause" would make the most sense. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, although some syndromes will have multiple causes. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the place to talk about getting it renamed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Medical prescription, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Ligamentous laxity

I've just removed substantial copyvio from Ligamentous laxity, and took the opportunity to remove some unsourced material at the same time. It's now a stub and much in need of expert medical attention (which I'm not qualified to provide). Thanks in advance, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced health claims at Humic substance

Hi folks. I just removed a couple of questionable seeming self-published sources from Humic substance. There are a bunch of health claims and similar claims there which don't seem to be reliably sourced. I don't feel like enough of an expert to critically evaluate the claims made there and don't have the time to devote to this to become knowledgeable enough about it. Can someone here with more familiarity with such topics take a look, maybe adding some sources or removing claims which seem dodgy? Thanks! –jacobolus (t) 02:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

They were originally "badly sourced". I've moved the whole mess to the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

New editor using only primary sources and telling me to not "interfere" in his edits

Scientific observer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wow, this I think is a new one. On Talk:Mpox and elsewhere, this brand new editor is saying repeatedly [3][4][5] that I should not interefere...because [I am] biased toward [my] interest in vaccines and antibody therapeutics and that the viruses [I] studied (Zika, Ebola, and Hantaviruses) are not related to poxviridae.

Funny enough, I did actually use modified Ankara-strain Vaccinia during my PhD, and did a lot of small-molecule article reviews and similar relevant experiments. lol. But let alone that this is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand of whether or not my input is warranted, and whether this user is following the WP:PAGs...

The main issue is that they are proceeding to add claims about the use of certain off-label drugs and small molecule inhibitors to different poxviridae-adjacent and other related articles (Mycophenolic acid, Mpox, Vaccinia), using only primary sources and WebMD/the FDA page for "off-label drugs". Despite the local (and global consensus) that such primary sources and irrelevant WebMD/etc are not suitable for such claims. They are also starting (and hugely expanding) a few articles with mainly primary sources Zelenirstat, IMP-1088, N-myristoyltransferase inhibitors. In and of itself, it's not an issue to be adding primary articles (which, I suspect, this user may have authored) to wikipedia. The issue is that this user is not understanding the meaning of a proper secondary source.

They also went and found a source I personally authored and removed it from the relevant article (Zika virus).

Could definitely use some outside eyes (and patience) on this one. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

An IP editor just pointed out [6] on Talk:Mpox that in the 6 days since one of these journal articles was published (Witwit et al in Viruses - "Repurposing Drugs for Synergistic Combination Therapies to Counteract Monkeypox Virus Tecovirimat Resistance") one person or several people (including ([7] some Chula Vista, California and Scripps Research Institute IP addresses (192.26.252.1)) plus the above username, altogether this/these user(s) have added it as a citation to 12 different wiki articles. See Altmetric.

Overall, I'd say there's a pretty good case to be made based on the evidence that this user may be an author on the article. I've tried to caution them accordingly... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, obviously you can just ignore any assertions that you shouldn't "interfere" by engaging in ordinary editing activities. Having looked through a few edits, I hope that we are able to keep this new editor and upgrade their knowledge of what Wikipedia needs. Perhaps Wikipedia:10SIMPLERULES – Oops, that got boldly blanked and redirected away a couple of weeks ago. (The discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia#Merge and is now at Wikipedia talk:Trifecta#Collecting short-rule essays, if anyone's interested.) So perhaps you'd like to point the new editor at s:Ten Simple Rules For Editing Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Isn't it also rather early for an article for his new article on the very early-stage Zelenirstat? One wonders about COI. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps a little bit early? Traditionally, we have encouraged the creation of articles about experimental drugs at Phase 2b, and I assume that the "escalation phase" mentioned is Phase 2a (dose-finding tests). It's also normal at this stage for the articles to say as much about the business side as anything else, and this doesn't mention the company's name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Methylsulfonylmethane#Medical_and_dietary_use

This section needs a severe cull to be MEDRS compliant. SmartSE (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I started hacking away at it, but it needs more. On the one hand, someone has put a lot of work into assembling a comprehensive list of prior research. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia. Editors should not be writing review articles here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I jumped in and tried to help by re-organizing the medical claims using as many MED:MOS subheadings as I could with the content already shared. Hope what I did helps a little. Feel free to change it back and keep improving in different ways if you disagree! JenOttawa (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi all,

I've just realised it says at the top to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor. I'm Daphne, I'm working on becoming an experienced editor in science and medical topics. I'm currently working towards getting Hashimoto's Thyroiditis up to an appropriate level to submit for good article review, which I intend to do once I've drawn a diagram comparing healthy and hashimotos histological features. I would appreciate any tips if you have them. Daphne Morrow (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, Daphne! Thank you for introducing yourself. Your contributions to thyroid hormone articles are appreciated, and your significant expansion of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis is impressive. I will share my comments on Talk:Hashimoto's thyroiditis. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It is great to have you here Daphne Morrow! JenOttawa (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

US federal health agency communications freeze

Agencies subject to the Department of Health & Human Services directive include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this will affect the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This is horrifying. Perhaps I am over reacting, but this seems like a first step in the Politicization of science within the health field. Boghog (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

First? Paint me a cynic, but that bridge has long been crossed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Not the first example in the lastest presidential campaign. Trying to give the new administration the benefit of the doubt which based previous history is unjustified. Boghog (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report was not published this week. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

References

RfC regarding water fluoridation

Dear all, you are kindly invited to participate in the RfC here. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Notable page in need of updating

Hello, I made some edits today to Dermatomyositis, but it still needs some work. The citations I added have a lot more information in them and can be used to update much more of the page. I mainly focused on updating the Causes section. If anyone's interested in helping bring a high-impact page up to date with recent research and consensus (it wasn't even described as an autoimmune disease before my revision) this is the page for ya. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Anoscopy, proctoscopy, rectoscopy

Some sources seem to treat these as distinct investigations based on the length of the instrument, but the terms also seem to be somewhat interchangeable in other sources, and the choice of term seems somewhat arbitrary. On wiki the latter 2 are already dealt with on the same page. Maybe we should merge the former too. Thoughts? Moribundum (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

My guess is that one of these terms is in more common use than the others Moribundum (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Effects of human sexual promiscuity

Just reverted (diff) several edits by a new IP editor at Effects of human sexual promiscuity, which is (mercifully) an orphan. Too many problems to enumerate, but lets start with whether we should have a page about this topic, and whether the medical primary sources added recently (now reverted) were chiefly to give it an air of scientific respectability, or what exactly is going on there. (I think IP's inclusion of the Heritage Foundation as a source gives some insight on that, maybe not the full story.) Maybe the best tack is just to leave it alone and hope it stays an orphan? Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Or merge it to Promiscuity? There are obvious health effects (e.g., greater risk of exposure to STIs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Immune complex deposition

Hi there! Could we have someone come join the RFD for Immune complex deposition? I'm wondering what the best target might be and am not sufficiently confident in my ability to sort through medical texts to see how the best target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

White pulp of spleen

Could someone with more knowledge of the spleen than me please improve the caption of File:Spleen hyaloserositis - low mag.jpg on Spleen#Pulp? Currently it says the while pulp is "blue", which is supremely unhelpful. Nothing in the image looks blue to me (nor should it, with H&E) – my guess is the white pulp is the lighter (white) areas interspersed in the red pulp. Toadspike [Talk] 18:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked at this and thought that the "blue" might be the darker (purple-ish) areas. Nephron wrote that caption in 2010, but he's not on wiki much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hematoxylin does stain nuclei blue/purple, and the white pulp (a name ascribed to appearance of spleen freshly cut - wherein the open splenic sinusoids are red with RBCs, and the relatively bloodless lymphoid aggregates appear white) appears relatively blue compared with surrounding red pulp. I have edited the caption to say "blue nuclei in lighter background" (to describe the white pulp). — soupvector (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:ASD#Requested move 30 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ASD#Requested move 30 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Opinions needed re anal sex as a cause of fecal incontinence

Hello please see Talk:Fecal_incontinence#Kumar_2017_review to give opinion Moribundum (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

For TLDR editors, my general feeling is that because research on anal sex and fecal incontinence remains limited, mention of this should be kept relatively brief on the article. In contrast, Moribundum has proposed a rather large body of text with detailed explanations of individual studies. I'm not opposed to including what they wrote, but I also think it verges into WP:TEXTBOOK. Other editor input on the discussion would be appreciated. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Users should be directed to the conversation immediately above the discussion provided by Moribundum: Talk:Fecal incontinence#Anal sex section Zenomonoz (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

A request for comment is just supposed to be a link and a neutral statement. I was actually mainly wanting opinions regarding how the Kumar source should be used, but sure give opinion about the section as a whole if you want. I responded re length of section on that talk page in the interests of not splitting discussion. Moribundum (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

tuberculosis/kansas

• per https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/major-tuberculosis-outbreak-hits-kansas-city-area-2025-01-29/ we may need an artilce on this(as its one of the largest outbreaks ever)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  For those not familiar with the geography, the Kansas City metropolitan area straddles the dividing line between Kansas and Missouri. The outbreak "in Kansas" is associated with a significant outbreak in Missouri as well, but it's mostly within one place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  On 3 January it was reported that,"after the CDC refuted that,[it was one of the largest ever] a state health official offered clarification, claiming this outbreak has seen the country’s highest case numbers over a one-year period"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

References

MEDRS infographic

If you are interested in infographics about MEDRS or other sourcing requirements, you might be able to give useful advice at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I have posted a draft alternative format for the diagram there. Daphne Morrow (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have posted a new draft of the diagram explaining MEDRS there; I would appreciate feedback if anyone's interested :) Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

!!! Destructive editing of Crohn's disease !!!

Please take a look at this page. It (previously a GA) was rewritten in full by a single person several months ago, and the current version has severe problems. Most of the page is reliant on only two citations, and spot checks of these citations fail. Major discussions of the topic, such as the medication that was generally considered first-line until recently, are completely missing.

This is a major medical topic with well over 100,000 page views per month, so I think speed should be a priority here. I personally think a reversion to the article revision before the destructive editing began, if possible, would be best. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's the diff. The previous version was significantly out of date (e.g., sources from 20+ years ago). There's also been a Wikipedia:Peer review/Crohn's disease/archive2 of the new content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Went ahead and did the reversion after comparing. Despite a large chunk of cites being out of date, the newer version was too unbalanced and left more gaps in the page. Given concerns raised in that peer review and on the talk page, without the contributor (or anyone else) actually arguing to retain the page, I interpreted most people as neutral or supporting the revert. @WhatamIdoing

It does still need some work though, you're right. I have a long plane flight soon, perhaps I can bring it up to speed. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

agree with reverting to long standing version, and agree current version can-of-beans did is the long standing version.

honest question (and i think ive seen it brought up before around village pump), how long does a version of an article have to stick around to become the long-standing version? apparently the other version was up for 4 months without anyone noticing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, lots of people noticed. There was a prior thread at this project and also some stuff on the article's talk page. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Blue, the more relevant question would be: What makes you think that matters? WP:QUO isn't a policy or guideline, and it doesn't say what most editors think it says. Fights over which version is The True™ Long-Standing Version are usually just a way to say that the version I prefer is the one that ought to be kept, and the version that you prefer is Not It.

See also m:The Wrong Version. Sometimes, all the versions are the wrong version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

fair enough.

seen folks throw the "long standing version" idea around a bit, and i've used the phrase myself. thanks for the insight around what that phrase actually means. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You are correct: We do talk this way.

QUO's goal is just to avoid an edit war while discussions are going on. For the most part, if an article was "like that" for the weeks/months/years before the attempt to improve it, then having it be wrong for a few more days is less damaging than having an edit war.

It should also not be taken as an absolute. Once upon a time, I was one of several editors involved in a dispute with a relative newcomer. The newcomer only participated in the discussion when we reverted to the disputed version. So for perhaps a week, the daily process was to see what they said yesterday, reply to what they said yesterday, and revert the article to the version they disliked. Then they would revert back and post a comment in the discussion. If we didn't revert, they didn't discuss. Our slow-motion edit war was necessary to make the discussion happen. (These days, we'd probably seek a partial block instead.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hypertensive crisis infobox image

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at File:227 over 93 hypertension.jpg just added to the infobox of Hypertensive crisis. It seems OK for a copyright standpoint and the uploader also seems to mean well. Is it, though, the best image for the infobox from an encyclopedic standpoint. That's an assessment that probably should be made by user more familiar with medical related articles and the standards associated with them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, apart from being slightly blurry, I think it is nearly ideal. It is a difficult to illustrate concept otherwise. CFCF (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Sex and intelligence and WP:MEDRS

Would any editors like to clarify if statements relating Biological sex and Intelligence should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, in-line with what is currently expected at Talk:Intelligence quotient?

I would like to remove current primary sources and other non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sources from Sex and intelligence (at least when they are being used to back claims about sex and intelligence), while another users believes it would be more neutral to for us to consider the body of literature as a whole ourselves, including primary research articles, and to summarize them here on Wikipedia. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If a primary source hasn't been considered interesting or important enough to get picked up by any secondary source, then the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is best achieved by omitting it. There are occasional exceptions (e.g., a study too recent to be reported), but as a general rule, neutrality is achieved by having reliable sources do the part about "considering the body of literature as a whole". It might be better to look for a graduate-level textbook chapter instead of trying to pick a review article.

With a brief glance over there, it looks like editors need to correct WP:MEDSAY violations as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Also, I hadn't seen WP:MEDSAY, that is good to know for this article as well as going forward. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to point out that the article series on sex and various features have been in violation of MEDRS since at least 2014. I think they could do with some reworking, and yes I believe MEDRS should apply to a large extent. CFCF (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Double checking: Science-Based Medicine is a reliable source

My understanding is that Science-Based Medicine is a MEDRS reliable source. Is that correct? Thanks! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 12:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a case of "it depends". It's typically accepted as WP:PARITY for fringe theories, and as reliable for comments with WP:INTEXT attribution on a journal. But you shouldn't be using it to support basic medical content (e.g., what's a normal blood pressure?). See WP:SBM for a summary and (perhaps more importantly) for links to prior discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Patient Safety in Nigeria

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and have created an article titled Patient Safety in Nigeria - Wikipedia. Suggestion(s) on how to improve the article will be appreciated.

Thank you. Oye2633 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Oye2633, some parts of this article appear to be Persuasive writing (certain "Efforts need to be" made, we have some "Recommended strategies"). An encyclopedia article should be plain description: This happened (or is happening). This resulted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi

Could someone who knows the rules on medicine related articles please check Ayurveda (or at least the lead)? I see the article lead describes it as a 'therapy' which implies it has medical benefit.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead of Ayurveda does not contain the word therapy. Did you link the wrong article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think they're referring to the part of the lead that says "Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia. Therapies include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils." Daphne Morrow (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes that part, I though lead was the section before the first heading, maybe I'm wrong... John Cummings (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No, you're right; it's just that when it wasn't in the first sentence, I used ⌘F to search, and searching for therapy doesn't find therapies on the page.

People sometimes use the word modalities in such cases. It's short for treatment modalities. More generally, I question whether calling something therapy really implies medical benefit (rather than medical intent), and whether these have no medical benefit. Yoga has the medical benefit of physical exercise; ayurvedic diets tend to be plant-forward, which has medical benefits; laxatives and enemas are medical treatments; meditation is a mainstream medical recommendation for people with ADHD, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks for your reply, I guess my association is that if something is theraputic then it has efficacy, which is very much is confict with the first paragraphy which says "The theory and practice of ayurveda is pseudoscientific and toxic metals such as lead are used as ingredients in many ayurvedic medicines". John Cummings (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings from Therapy: "Not all therapies are effective. Many therapies can produce unwanted adverse effects." — soupvector (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Face masks during COVID-19 article tagging

Comments from experienced WP:MEDRS-familiar editors are requested at Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#NIOSH's_1992_method_for_determining_the_effectiveness_of_resporators_as_a_"public_health_exposure_control_method", especially Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Proposal_to_remove_article_tag. Additional background can be found at Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Removal_Deemphasis_of_RCT_mask_studies_in_progress and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_251#Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic. Much appreciated as this has been a long-running dispute with a particular editor. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine FRINGE RFC

There is currently an RFC on whether the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine is WP:FRINGE taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This is specifically about the destruction of funding for US medical research, not sure where to put it

NIH caps "indirect research costs" at 15%, potentially surrendering decades of US dominance in medical research. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That headline sounds more like "the destruction of the Research university", as those "indirect costs" pay the university administration and overhead (e.g., cleaning the lab). If anyone wants to write about it, then a WPMED editor created Indirect costs many years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Some disturbing reading about the "destruction" of funding for US medical research (see Charles Piller, Cassava Sciences and Sylvain Lesné:

• https://www.economist.com/culture/2025/02/05/have-doctors-been-wrong-about-how-to-treat-alzheimers-disease
• https://www.thetransmitter.org/science-and-society/doctored-fraud-arrogance-and-tragedy-in-the-quest-to-cure-alzheimers-an-excerpt/
• https://retractionwatch.com/2025/02/04/undisclosed-conflicts-lightning-fast-peer-review-one-alzheimers-journals-role-in-a-failed-drug/
• https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/doctored-book-excerpt/
• https://www.bookpage.com/reviews/doctored-charles-piller-book-review/

There's also a New York Times and Wall Street Journal entry, but paywalled. Piller makes a case that a lot of money has been wasted in Alzheimer's research, and implies that may be a reason solutions have lagged other diseases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

its a bit of a nonsequitor to use criticism of amyloid hypothesis in a section about systematic destruction of biomedical research?

though amyloid hypothesis has seen some fraud over the years, its worth pointing out that there are very much real and important links between amyloid and Alzheimers disease that justifies much of the funding going to amyloid.

[8] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

List of your articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, 2025

Currently, this project has about ~59 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

1. Bhopal disaster
2. Breastfeeding difficulties
3. Health effects of electronic cigarettes
4. History of autism
5. Menstrual suppression
6. Mental health in Russia
7. Mental health in the Philippines
8. Miklós Nyiszli
9. Motor skill
10. National Canine Research Council
11. National Institutes of Health
12. Neue Deutsche Heilkunde
13. Nursing home care in the United Kingdom
14. Nursing shortage in Canada
15. Omsk State Medical University
16. Osteitis fibrosa cystica
17. Otoplasty
18. Paclitaxel
19. Pain management during childbirth
20. Paravertebral block
21. Parkinson's disease
22. Patient participation
23. Perfectionism (psychology)
24. Plague doctor costume
25. Plasma Economy
26. Prenatal cocaine exposure
27. Progeria
28. Psychedelia
29. Psychedelic music
30. Psychiatric assessment
31. Psychiatry
32. Psychopathy Checklist
33. Pyromania
34. Respirator
35. Scintillating scotoma
36. Seizure types
37. Self-harm
38. Serum protein electrophoresis
39. Small intestine cancer
40. Smoking and pregnancy
41. Socioeconomic status
42. Spinal cord injury
43. Stiff-person syndrome
44. Stomach cancer
45. Straitjacket
46. Stuttering
47. Thalamic reticular nucleus
48. Thrombosis prevention
49. Thrombosis
50. Traditional healers of Southern Africa
51. Transgenerational trauma
52. Ultrasonography of chronic venous insufficiency of the legs
53. Unethical human experimentation
54. United States Public Health Service
55. Urban legends about drugs
56. Ureterovaginal fistula
57. Vulvoplasty
58. Western pattern diet
59. White blood cell differential

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Around half way done. Velayinosu (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I fixed another. I haven't installed the script; I just searched for {{harv and {{sfn in the wikitext. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease is particularly problematic; I raised the issue at the (current) GA nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Only 3 remain. The no-target error on "Mental health in Russia" is ref 56, which is to a Russia Today reference that was removed with this edit[9] because RT is deprecated. I skipped "Parkinson's disease" since it seems like others are working on that article. And the no-target error on "Thrombosis prevention" is ref 23 (Lilley), but I'm not sure what this reference is. The sfns were added in this edit[10] without a full reference. Velayinosu (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that is a prior version of this book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Harv ref errors follow-up

More eyes needed at Parkinson's disease; it gets about 4,000 views a day and as one of WP:MED's most highly viewed pages, is worthy of attention. I only partially detailed the sourcing and citation problems at the GAN page, but have been unable to correct all the issues myself because of IRL time limitations. Maintenance tags removed; regardless of GA status, this article should be accurate, and readers should be informed there are sourcing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Cytotron

The Cytotron, a device made by a company Shreis Scalene Sciences has been in the news recently because of a fictionalised Netflix film, Lucca's World. Depending on who you listen to, the Cytotron, and its near-namesake the Neurocytotron from a Mexican company called Neurocytonix, both of which seem to be based on "Rotational Field Quantum Magnetic Resonance", are either a revolutionary new treatment for a variety of conditions including cancer, cerebral palsy and even autism... or just pseudoscience.[11]

Searching for "RFQMR" finds we already have a User:Cytotron, and a mention in List of megaprojects in India (which I will remove in a moment).

There is a whole lot about this from PR release republishers, but very little about any of this in WP:RS. This seems to me the sort of topic WP:MED should be taking a look at, one way or the other. — The Anome (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If not supported in reliable sources, then it doesn't sound like an encyclopedic topic. — soupvector (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Allow for bots (e.g. Citation bot) to remove redundant URLs known to not host a full freely-accessible version.

Please comment, since this would affect a significant portion of medical articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Autism and biomedical vs neurodiversity views

More medical editors are likely needed at Autism. As seen in this talk page section, an editor is arguing that the article should be tagged "unbalanced" for giving too much weight to medical views based on, among other things, a survey they ran. There's also an ongoing Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion (linked therein). This same editor wrote a lengthy userpage essay, also published elsewhere, against Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, so there seems to be a concerted push to alter coverage in this area. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

An RFC is already being planned.

My impression is that the existing article is outdated (e.g., it cites some sources from the previous century) and generally in poor shape. The suggested change is partly updates, partly the addition of viewpoints (e.g., autism as a personal identity and a source of positive experiences), and partly to use more positive-sounding language.[1]

I can image three basic categories of responses: The article is a mess now, and it should be updated and remain rooted in the biomedical model; the article is a mess now, and it should be converted primarily to a social model of disability and an identity orientation when it gets update; and it's such a mess now that any improvement would be welcome, regardless of POV.

If you are even slightly interested in this subject, please skim over the article and put the page on your watchlist so you can see when the RFC appears.

[1] Examples of wording options:

• Lots of people have both autism and generalized anxiety disorder; are these conditions "comorbid" or "co-occurring"?
• Does autism have medical-sounding "symptoms" or non-medical-sounding "characteristics" and "features"?
• Do autistic people have a "risk" of developing epilepsy, or do that have a higher "likelihood" of developing epilepsy?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing - what a nice summary! Balanced, succinct, informative, and as someone moderately involved in the DRN discussions, I find myself feeling more optimistic and motivated to stay involved. As we say in the South (U.S.), I appreciate you. (The proper Southern pronunciation of the verb is: ah-preee-shee-ate ;^) Cheers! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Once a Featured article, with the entire suite of autism-related content cleaned up by User:Eubulides, those articles were taken over by advocacy editing over a decade ago and are unlikely to be salvageable. I long ago unwatched the lot; like some other areas of Wikipedia, the consensus model does not work in this suite of articles because the number of advocates editing in that area overruns the number of editors who strive for MEDRS compliance. Almost everything in that suite of articles should be tagged with more than unbalanced. If an RFC happens, please ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all for the responses. I'll keep an eye out for an RfC, at least. I wish I could think of some way to make it easier for a broader set of editors to work on these sorts of controversial topics, which would probably help alleviate the balance issues.

Something to watch out for is preventing the privileging of the experiences of those with milder symptoms, as though their experiences are representative of the entire condition, just because they are more likely to be heard from. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Attachment therapy#Requested move 19 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attachment therapy#Requested move 19 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Streptococcal pharyngitis#Requested move 16 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Streptococcal pharyngitis#Requested move 16 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kolano • talk 21:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Transgender health care misinformation/1

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Transgender health care misinformation/1. There's some discussion over whether some papers are MedRS, and input would be helpful. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Chronic inflammatory response syndrome

Chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS) was created as a redirect to Sick building syndrome by @Joel Amos, but is not currently mentioned in the article.

Annals of Medicine & Surgery describes it as a "multisymptom, multisystem illness acquired following respiratory exposure to water-damaged buildings."

• Dooley, Ming; Vukelic, April; Jim, Lysander (8 November 2024). "Chronic inflammatory response syndrome: a review of the evidence of clinical efficacy of treatment". Annals of Medicine & Surgery. 86 (12): 7248–7254. doi:10.1097/MS9.0000000000002718. ISSN 2049-0801.

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome is similarly named, but CIRS is not mentioned there either. Would anyone happen to know to which it should be redirected, or a new article be created altogether? 9³ (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not actually necessary for every redirect to be mentioned in an article; WP:RFD#DELETE only worries about them if they're "novel" or "very obscure" (i.e., nobody can figure out why they might be related).

The journal is middling (not bad).[12] The redirect to Sick building syndrome is not unreasonable. I suspect that this is another "chronic fatigue" problem: Do you have ME/CFS, or are you only tired all the time? This article appears to be about "the" chronic inflammatory response syndrome, and not just a syndrome that happens to be associated with a long-term inflammatory response. Overall, I'd suggest leaving it alone, but if you decide to mention it in the SBS article, I would carefully avoid any wording that implies that CIRS is a recognized or accepted thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested infoboxes

If you happen to like adding infoboxes, please consider looking at the suggestions in Category:Medicine articles needing infoboxes.

There is no requirement that any article have an infobox, but these have been tagged by an editor. They're mostly people, so you can add {{infobox person}} or the adaptations of that generic template for medical caregivers and scientists. After adding an infobox, please (please please please) edit the {{WikiProject Medicine}} banner at the top of the talk page and remove the |needs-infobox=yes parameter.

Not everyone appreciates infoboxes, and even people who prefer them in general won't like them for a particular article, so I suggest that if you get reverted, just walk away. There are hundreds of requests, and your time is probably better spent adding them where they are actually wanted instead of discussing one possibly borderline case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

An editor removed my content

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manual_therapy&diff=1277591205&oldid=1277590732

I am editing an article on manual therapy, and believe that my source is reliable. Can someone please check my source?

Studenttourocmk (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The source is:

• Kerry, Roger; Young, Kenneth J.; Evans, David W.; Lee, Edward; Georgopoulos, Vasileios; Meakins, Adam; McCarthy, Chris; Cook, Chad; Ridehalgh, Colette; Vogel, Steven; Banton, Amanda; Bergström, Cecilia; Mazzieri, Anna Maria; Mourad, Firas; Hutting, Nathan (2024-05-21). "A modern way to teach and practice manual therapy". Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 32 (1). doi:10.1186/s12998-024-00537-0. ISSN 2045-709X. PMC 11110311. PMID 38773515.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Using Template:MEDRS evaluation as a framework, here's how I would evaluate it:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: A modern way to teach and practice manual therapy PMID 38773515
• Date of publication: 2024-05-21, 10 months ago.
• Journal name: Chiropractic & Manual Therapies ISSN 2045-709X
• Publisher's name: Y Springer is one of the largest publishers of academic journals. The source may be available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
• Journal reputation: Top-rated chiropractic journal per https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/19700201301; above average ranking for physical therapy.
• Primary vs secondary: Y Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): Y Review article
• Pre-clinical vs human: N/A
• Independence: N/A

User:Viewmont Viking, do you disagree with any of these points? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

No issues, my concern was the Journal, but if others believe it meet requirements I do not object. VViking_TalkEdits 17:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Studenttourocmk, I think you're cleared to use this source. Please make sure that you write 'conservatively' around this subject. It's important not to go beyond what the source says, and the article needs to stay in balance with what all the good sources say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you 204.128.182.15 (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:AAGL#Requested move 19 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:AAGL#Requested move 19 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24 § Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPath^talk 12:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Restless legs syndrome and MEDMOS

Hello, please look at the above article. I tried to implement section headings as per MEDMOS for Diseases or disorders or syndromes but was reverted. There are also other problems with the sections on that article like duplicated content "Diagnosis and treatment" section but later separate "Diagnosis" and "Treatment" sections. Please comment: Talk:Restless_legs_syndrome#MEDMOS_article_organization, thank you Moribundum (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Statistical analysis

I reverted this edit because I could only find the source on preprint and it isn't listed in the TOC for the issue of the journal that it claims to be published in. My question here though is whether the type of information (association between excess deaths and COVID vaccination rate) falls under MEDRS? If the editor is able to correct the citation to an accepted-and-published version of the paper, would that type of statistical analysis be acceptable in an article or would it require a secondary source? Schazjmd (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that. We avoid WP:PREPRINTS for medical content. More importantly, this may be a case of Correlation does not imply causation: places with greater fear of COVID-19 will have both higher vaccination rates and lower willingness to seek help in the dangerously germy environment of a emergency room for a "possible" heart attack. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with reverting it because it does not belong in this article. It could go in an article on COVID vaccines with appropriate caveats about correlation. T g7 (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Dasia Taylor

The deletion debate of a teenager who added vegetable dyes to sutures may be of interest to the community here, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasia Taylor. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

closed as keep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC about the pathologization of trans identities

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities with the question Is the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness WP:FRINGE within the bounds of mainstream medicine and international human rights? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Help

Hi, could someone please take a look at Draft:Ivonescimab, please, before I move it into articlespace. Your assistance is invaluable. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Please delete this part as it is not encyclopedic: "has been compared to DeepSeek's breakout on the international artificial intelligence scene; its success has been described as a watershed moment for the pharmaceutical industry in China. Summit Therapeutics, the American licensing partner of Akeso Biopharma, has seen a drastic rise in its stock price as a result of ivonescimab's success." Otherwise it is ok but may be considered by some people as a stub. T g7 (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

What content guideline does it violate? I have more sources to substantiate this claim. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 15:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess it just sounds like non neutral point of view Moribundum (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder

The page Major depressive disorder is currently a FA, however a lot of the citations are out of date and need to be replaced or else their is a risk of the page losing it's status as a FA. If you head over to Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#FA_concerns I've made a list of all the citations that should be replaced. I've personally taken a swing at replacing some of these with mixed success. Some of them (such as updating the refs from the DSM 4 to DSM 5) should be fairly easy, but not all of the older sources will be able to be replaced. Thanks in advance to anyone who is willing to lend a hand to this page. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've posted a bunch of links to up-to-date psychiatry textbooks in that discussion. These are serious, multi-hundred-dollar medical school textbooks. If you are eligible for Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library and you want to work on any psychiatry-related articles, please take a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

RfCs started at Talk:Autism about article focus and lead

Please see the following RfCs: Talk:Autism#RFC: Focus of Autism Article and Talk:Autism#RFC: Lede Section of Autism. Comments from experienced medical editors are much appreciated. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Methoxyflurane

Methoxyflurane has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hypercorrection_with_regards_to_plural_form_of_anatomical_terms_in_English

Posted note here [13] about grammar of anatomical terms. Not sure that project anatomy is active however so post link here too Moribundum (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Uncited articles

Hey, all, we are so close to getting a citation into every single WPMED article! This list used to be huge, with hundreds and hundreds of articles tagged, but through steady work from Iztwoz, 23impartial, and all of y'all, there are only three dozen left today.

Please take a minute and add a source or two to one of these articles, and then remove the {{unref}} tag. I just did Denominator data, and it was kind of fun to learn about the subject. Most of these are organizations, so they don't require any technical knowledge.

Article	Tag date
Changzhi Medical College	April 2018
Citizens' Health Care Working Group	February 2018
Clinical Medicine College of Hangzhou Normal University	February 2014
Clinical Officers Council	August 2012
Denominator data	February 2025
College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario	February 2025
Diagnostic Health Corporation	June 2019
Dnipro State Medical University	March 2012
ELAM 10 Rafael Ferro Macias	July 2018
ELAM 5 Combate Ceja del Negro	July 2010
European Federation for Medical Informatics	October 2011
European Forum for Good Clinical Practice	October 2019
European Practice Assessment	September 2019
Excavation (medicine)	February 2025
Federal Centre for Health Education	December 2015
Federal University of São Paulo	August 2019
First Aid Care Team	January 2022
First Aid Convention Europe	March 2012
Gilan University of Medical Sciences	November 2023
Health & Social Care Business Services Organisation	May 2016
Hong Kong Society of Medical Informatics	August 2022
Intensive Care Society	January 2025
International Journal of Fertility – WP:PROD	May 2018
Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons	September 2022
Journal of Infection Prevention	April 2023
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy	June 2021
Journal of Palliative Medicine	January 2021
Kazakhstan National Respiratory Society	August 2014
Kenya Clinical Officers Association	August 2012
List of hormonal cytostatic antineoplastic agents	August 2020
Medical Support Officer	December 2021
Medical direction redirected Paramedic	December 2009
Nantong University College of Medicine	January 2023
Peripheral vascular examination	July 2013
Plasmodiidae	February 2025
Ranks and insignia of St John Ambulance (England)	September 2024
Salirophilia	November 2024

Feel free to strike <s>...</s> any article in the table that you've done. Thanks for your help! WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to the folks who have been helping out, and to our friends at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, who are pitching in to help us wrap this up. We have less than 10 to go now! WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done We are done! Silver seren did the last ones in the list. I re-generated the list this morning, and WPMED has ZERO {{unreferenced}} articles left. It's time to celebrate! I'm going to pitch a brief note about this for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Thank you to everyone who added a source to these older articles, everyone who made sure that new articles had a source from the beginning, everyone who kept up with the rest of the work while some of us focused on this, and the multiple other WikiProjects who helped with interdisciplinary subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Student editors, Endocrinology

Students at Union College are taking on some difficult medical topics, including assorted supplements and adrenal fatigue. It appears some constructive review and suggestions might be helpful. ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Just rescued Adrenal fatigue from pro-fringe messing. It's going to be one of those occasions where shutting down Wiki-Ed seems like a good idea, isn't it. Bon courage (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Methylene blue

Methylene Blue has received a lot of WP:MEDRS questionable edits this yeart that tend to maximize the jargon with the implication that it is a cure-all. WP:MEDRS familiar editors are needed to cull the hype. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

In my understanding it's part of the armoury of the New Quackery in the USA (alongside ivermectin, cod liver oil, etc.). Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Two new articles on DNA need scrutiny

Y-DNA and Y-chromosomal DNA loads of sources but no citations, so a bit of a mess. I've told the author about posting here. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• the latter is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Y-chromosomal_DNA please comment there--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Stayin' Alive

Hello, I believe any editor active in this WikiProject would be interested in adding WP:MEDRS-level sources to Stayin' Alive#Use in medical training, thank you. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

MMR vaccine and autism and possible CDC research

For those interested in the MMR Vaccine and Autism article, a discussion on the possible research that might come from CDC and if it should be included. Talk:MMR_vaccine_and_autism#Recent_CDC_Stuff Ravensfire (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)