Talk:Metformin

CS1 maint: overridden setting -- fixing the page and removing it from the error / warning category

Hello @Zefr: I refer to your edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Metformin&oldid=prev&diff=1199501844 (where you reverted my edit where I fixed an error).

When the display-authors limitation is set in the main template "cs1 config", as in this page, then this setting applies to all citations. There is no need to set it additionally in each citation if it is already set in the "cs1 config". If this option is set in both config and individual citation, the articles go to the "error" / "warning" category "CS1 maint: overridden setting". My edits fix this problem and remove pages from this "CS1 maint: overridden setting" category. In that particular edit, the page already has "{{cs1 config |name-list-style=vanc |display-authors=6}}", so if the page has a duplicate "name-list-style=vanc" or "display-authors=6" in each individual "{{cite}}" or at least in one {{cite}}, then the page will go to the error category, "CS1 maint: overridden setting", as you can see. Before my edit, the page was in "CS1 maint: overridden setting". My edit removed the page from this category. Therefore, please consider restoring my edit.

Additionally, in the edit summary of your revert, you specified to see the Talk page, but I didn't find any topic on the Talk page regarding this issue, so I'm creating this topic and welcome you.

Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Anti-aging

Heard this drug is associated with slowing down aging. 173.26.186.172 (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's already noted at Metformin#Life extension. Peaceray (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I was diagnosed with CAD at age fifty six and Diabetes at age sixty five. My A1c has been well controlled for twenty five years with a combination of Metformin and Glimeperide. My father, three of his brothers and my brother succumbed to CAD before age seventy. I have enjoyed at least twenty years. That would seem to support the notion that Metformin enhances longevity. Fwbarry (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fwbarry: This is what we call original research. We require reliable medical sources for articles that are part of WikiProject Medicine. Peaceray (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

covid

Some researchers have tried to use Metformin to treat covid patients. Any update ? Wisdood (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wisdood: Do you have secondary or tertiary sources that comply with WP:MEDRS? Peaceray (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone has added a section about covid since my message. Wisdood (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Keys et al Danish cohort study

Hi, I noticed that my recent edit adding a 2022 study about metformin and lifespan was reverted. I have cited a reliable source (a study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology). Could you please clarify why the edit was removed? I believe the study is relevant to the section on metformin and longevity. I'd appreciate any feedback or suggestions for improving the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.245.52 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Primary research is not reliable for WP:BMI. See WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDFAQ if you're in a hurry. Bon courage (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification. I'll cite Peter Attia's review on the article instead, as it aligns with the guidelines for secondary sources. I made the update. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification. I'll cite Peter Attia's review on the article instead, as it aligns with the guidelines for secondary sources. I'll make the update shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.245.52 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don't unless it's published in a quality journal. Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a peer reviewed journal also on pubmed. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way for arbitration for this? I've cited a peer reviewed article that Peter Attia also references. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m trying to add a section on a 2022 study that found no significant impact of metformin on lifespan, and I’ve cited Peter Attia MD’s review as a reliable secondary source. I believe this adds valuable balance to the article’s discussion on metformin and longevity. Can we discuss why this source does not meet criteria or how to improve the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.245.52 (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not WP:MEDRS. For these kind of statements we need peer-reviewed, quality, MEDRS scholarship. There is an absolute wealth of that on metformin. If you want more eyes ask at WT:MED. Bon courage (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I've cited a peer-reviewed journal article discussed in a review by Peter Attia MD, adhering to WP

guidelines for secondary sources. The article is peer reviewed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36287641/ 38.122.245.52 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed is not enough. Bon courage (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your previous feedback. I wanted to clarify something: You mentioned that peer-reviewed sources are required (WP), but in your recent comment, it seemed like peer-reviewed wasn’t enough. I’m a bit confused by this, as the article I referenced is from a peer-reviewed journal (International Journal of Epidemiology), and it’s further supported by a secondary source—Peter Attia MD’s review of the study.

Could you help me understand what is missing for this to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines? I want to ensure that I follow the rules, but I’m having trouble seeing where this doesn’t meet the standard. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

In general peer-review is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Please see the "Sourcing" section of WP:MEDFAQ. The current accepted knowledge on this topic appears to be in PMID:28802803. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. While I agree that peer-reviewed sources are essential, I believe it's also important to present the most up to date research on the topic. The study you referenced is excellent, but it is from 2017. Since then, additional research has emerged, including a 2022 retrospective study that offers a different perspective.

I would like to include this 2022 study to ensure we are providing a balanced view of the evidence, incorporating both the findings of the meta analysis and more recent data. Would that be acceptable within the guidelines of WP? 38.122.245.52 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I please add "A 2022 retrospective study found no significant increase in lifespan with metformin use. However, the study emphasizes that more research is needed to draw definitive conclusions." Would it be acceptable to include this information as an update to provide a more comprehensive view? The study is peer-reviewed and has been cited by both Peter Attia and the Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/longevity-metformin-anti-aging-biohacking-diabetes-16443b03 38.122.245.52 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve tried to reach out regarding the edits I made to the Metformin article. The article I’ve cited is from a peer-reviewed journal, which you can view here: https://academic.oup.com/ije/issue/51/6. Additionally, Peter Attia MD has reviewed this journal article and discussed its findings in detail: https://peterattiamd.com/a-recent-metformin-study-casts-doubts-on-longevity-indications/. Could you please explain how this doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s scholastic standards or WP? I’d like to ensure that my contributions align with Wikipedia's guidelines, and any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.245.52 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WP Standards

Hi, I’ve tried to reach out regarding the edits I made to the Metformin article. The article I’ve cited is from a peer-reviewed journal, which you can view here: https://academic.oup.com/ije/issue/51/6. Additionally, Peter Attia MD has reviewed this journal article and discussed its findings in detail: https://peterattiamd.com/a-recent-metformin-study-casts-doubts-on-longevity-indications/. Could you please explain how this doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s scholastic standards or WP? I’d like to ensure that my contributions align with Wikipedia's guidelines, and any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As a self-published blog/newsletter, that Attia commentary on the journal article does not meet our sourcing standards. Even if it did, it clearly states: "for real answers, randomized trials are needed" and "the new data aren’t enough to put the question to bed and don’t nullify the rationale", so I really don't see what it would add to the article.

The Metformin article already presents what I believe is a fairly balanced, though brief, view of this, citing a higher-quality source (a literature review):

Whether metformin may be helpful in extending life, even in otherwise healthy people, remains controversial; a 2021 review of the literature found it is likely to improve healthspan, i.e., the number of years spent in good health, rather than lifespan overall.

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

My initial take on a quick read of the "Aging and life extension" section is that it is not balanced. It seems to imply more evidence for metformin extending human lifespan than currently exist. The motivation to add clear text and ideally a reference that no research currently shows that is well guided. And if we cannot find a way to make this section more balanced, the whole section should probably be deleted as well. It might be possible to arrive at a more balanced section without adding any significant new text or references. Reordering some of the sentences might get close to this. Start with something like, "No evidence shows that metformin extends human lifespan. However..." and then lead into the remaining material.

Speaking to some of the other points in this thread (and as it continues from the previous Talk section). Some reviewers do a good job, some do not. Reviewers are almost always unpaid. You get what you pay for. Even the good reviewers have expertises and interests, so they may miss things. I claim expertise on the issue of reviewers, as I am a journal editor. Some prestigious journals (e.g., Science and Nature) have some crummy articles. Some bad journals occasionally have good articles. One of the best tests of an article's quality is the test of time: do its results stand up over years following its publication as readers and other scientists batter its results with new science. The New York Times tends to do excellent science reporting, but occasionally the Wall Street Journal does as well. Almost all newspapers over simplify science results and overstate their importance. So at the end of the day, there are no absolutes on WP:MEDRS, and even though something is "peer reviewed" does not always make for a good reference. Talk (e.g., this discussion) is good to moot the value of particular references.

As mentioned in these threads previously, this existing reference (currently #231) is probably sufficient to support the statement that "No evidence shows that metformin extends human lifespan."

Mohammed I, Hollenberg MD, Ding H, Triggle CR. A Critical Review of the Evidence That Metformin Is a Putative Anti-Aging Drug That Enhances Healthspan and Extends Lifespan. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Aug 5;12:718942. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.718942. PMID: 34421827; PMCID: PMC8374068.Jaredroach (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What about if it's referenced in the Wall Street Journal? https://www.wsj.com/articles/longevity-metformin-anti-aging-biohacking-diabetes-16443b03?mod=e2tw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.245.52 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WSJ is a conspicuously bad source for anything scientific. Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Assistance with secondary sources

I think that 38.122.245.52 has struggled with the difference between WP:RS & WP:MEDRS, which I think is common among editors not used to WP:MED. Since the Keys et al Danish cohort study was large (a 5% random sample of the Danish population recorded in the Civil Registration System (CRS) since 1968 and twin cohorts from all twin pairs) but now needs secondary sources since it was published 22 months ago, is there someone here (maybe a SME) who can locate coverage in systematic reviews, meta-analysis, & review articles? Surely some secondary source has written about this study by now. I would do this, but this is way beyond my expertise. Peaceray (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

They haven’t. I checked. It has a couple of mentions in citing sources but that’s it. Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are sources that cite Keys et al. Someone with a better understanding of Metformin & its efficacy than I do should have a look.

• Elliehausen CJ, Anderson RM, Diffee GM, Rhoads TW, Lamming DW, Hornberger TA, et al. (2023-12-08). "Geroprotector drugs and exercise: friends or foes on healthy longevity?". BMC Biology. 21 (1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. doi:10.1186/s12915-023-01779-9. ISSN 1741-7007.
• Montano M, Oursler KK, Marconi VC (2023-12-18). "Healthy aging: Linking causal mechanisms with holistic outcomes". Aging Cell. 23 (1). Wiley. doi:10.1111/acel.14065. ISSN 1474-9718. PMC 10776108. PMID 38108552.
• O'Keefe JH, Weidling R, O'Keefe EL, Franco WG (2023). "SGLT inhibitors for improving Healthspan and lifespan". Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 81. Elsevier BV: 2–9. doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2023.10.003. ISSN 0033-0620. PMID 37852518.
• Oxford H (2024). "Molecules with Pre-Clinical Evidence of Targeting Aging in Multi-species Models for Consideration in Companion Animal Medicine". Journal of the American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association. 75. American Holistic Veterinary Medical Association: 11–26. doi:10.56641/kbev3748.
• Petr MA, Matiyevskaya F, Osborne B, Berglind M, Reves S, Zhang B, et al. (2024). "Pharmacological interventions in human aging". Ageing Research Reviews. 95. Elsevier BV: 102213. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2024.102213. ISSN 1568-1637. Available through the Wikipedia Library

Peaceray (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The first one is a review article in a peer-reviewed medical journal. You can read it here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10709984/ The key sentence says "Therefore, caution should be used when considering the use of metformin as a geroprotective strategy because many of the proposed benefits on human aging come from preclinical models, patient populations, or those with hyperglycemia, and there is a paucity of data from people with normoglycemia and/or do not have an overt chronic disease". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Good find (I discounted that source from the title as I assumed is was considering metformin in combination with exercise: that'll teach me!) Bon courage (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It covers both (Metformin alone and also Metformin+exercise) separately. It's a desirable level of precision that surprised me, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Ref does not substantiate senrance

The reference for this sentence does not say what sentence claims: “In people without diabetes, metformin does not appear to reduce the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease.”

The study was of people at risk for type two diabetes. It did find for the null hypothesis, but not in the population the sentence suggests it does AngelaZ345 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)