Talk:Pattern hair loss

Recent changes to the lead

Xander flex, Ozzie10aaaa reverted you here due to you having added too much material and media sources. Per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Ozzie10aaaa was right to revert you. That is why I also reverted you. First, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize. It is not meant to be overly stuffed and include material that is not covered lower in the article first. We don't add a bunch of study material or quotes from people to the lead. Second, as mentioned, media sources should be avoided for this topic (unless a part of the "Society and culture" section to report on societal issues). For why, see what the WP:MEDPOP section of WP:MEDRS states. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources states as well. Per WP:MERDS, primary sources should also generally be avoided. For why primary sources are not best, do read WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Please take the time to discuss this rather than engage in WP:Edit warring. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked posted. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

thank you Flyer for pointing out the above (and for your support)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

X Chromosome/AR research removed

I understand that the purpose of the lead section is to give a brief overview of the subject. However, I find it a bit strange that well documented, empirical research is being removed from this article. At a minimum, I think a separate section should be included somewhere in the article that discusses all of the research that has been conducted about the genetic causes of baldness over the last several decades. This section should highlight the significance of the X chromosome, which has been scientifically established as the primary baldness gene in many many studies through an abundance of research.

Perhaps this section should cover ongoing research into the causes, which is primarily by the AR and potentially chromosome 20p11. I have reviewed the rules on primary resources, however, the evidence here is irrefutable and this should be acknowledge in this article somewhere to at least some extent. Otherwise, the article will continue to lack in a breadth of readily-available, reliable research that contributes significantly to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander flex (talk • contribs) 02:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Xander flex, all you did was pretty much re-add the same material...despite what I argued above. So I reverted again. Per what I stated above, don't add this material again. It needs good sourcing, different wording, and no media sources included, if added. Right now, you have no WP:Consensus to add to this. Right now, you are WP:Edit warring against two editors. And if you add this material again without consensus, I will report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. You do not have to violate WP:3RR to be reported.

I suggest you type up a draft in your sandbox and then link it here on this talk page for review so that others can weigh in on what about it needs fixing before we accept that content. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the article

The article first states: "Men with premature androgenic alopecia tend to have lower than normal values of sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), testosterone, and epitestosterone when compared to men without pattern hair loss."

Then after a couple of paragraphs states: "Men with androgenic alopecia typically have higher 5α-reductase, higher total testosterone, higher unbound/free testosterone, and higher free androgens, including DHT"

Obviously this is huge contradiction, and needs to be fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.34.134 (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Genetics and *Early* Hair loss

Both my father and *one* of my three sons show significant balding at an early age. My father had the 'Hippocratic wreath' in his wedding pictures at age 26 and my son (who is 19) is likely reaching the same point (probably a IV or V on the Hamilton–Norwood scale). Is there a separate gene related to *Early* male pattern hair loss? (Note, I'm in my 50s, so any balding that I get (little if any currently) would be more "standard").Naraht (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Skull Expansion

@MrOllie and Johnnyvee333: I've just reverted the recent addition by Johnnyvee333. I agree with MrOllie that it is poorly sourced, based heavily in WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, and not due for inclusion. Johnnyvee333 please make your case here for why it is WP:DUE for inclusion, and stop edit warring it into the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

why is X-linked recessive inheritance missing from the page?

Why on earth is there no reference to the fact that male pattern baldness is inherited in an X-linked-fashion ?

...the latest research of 250 or 287 genetic loci being involved not withstanding?

What am I missing here ?

Male pattern baldness is a classic for common X-linked conditions in medical textbooks, and according to my latest read it is still inherited that way, it is just phrased differently nowadays with increasing insight into genetics as "with particularly strong signals on the X chromosome".

So I will add this salient fact, well sourced.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Separate page for female pattern hair loss (FPHL)

Not recommended to be under same terms as alopecia or androgenic alopecia, which would help identify male pattern baldness more so. The two patterns of loss women have are different. Androgen levels are also normal in FPHL. Preferred terms now are independently male pattern hair loss and female pattern hair loss. The differential diagnosis' for FPHL include:

• Chronic telogen effluvium (CTE)
• Permanent alopecia after chemotherapy (PAC)
• Alopecia areata incognito (AAI)
• Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA)

References

Strongly agree, from the readers' perspective. This article is really confusing as it stands: the mechanism, genetics, and presentation all seem to differ between men and women, yet the information is all muddled together such that it is difficult to pick out what refers to which. Seperate articles would be much easier to read. :-). FloweringOctopus (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Some treatments are in the wrong section, and the distinction between sections is muddled

Plenty of treatments in the "Androgen-independent" category have effects on androgens, e.g., ketoconazole, spironolactone, alfatradiol, and topilutamide. Some research even indicates minoxidil has anti-androgenic effects.

Then, the remaining categories of "Female pattern", "Procedures", and "Alternative therapies" make little sense in contrast to "Androgen-dependent" and "Androgen-independent". Some treatments for female pattern hair loss involve androgens; some don't. Hair transplants are independent of androgens. Some alternative therapies involve androgens (e.g., saw palmetto); some don't.

The "Treatment" section could be organized more clearly. ConfusingBurden (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Society and Culture (no clear distinction between Dihydrotachysterol and Dihydrotestosterone)

(This paragraph does not differentiate between Dihydrotestosterone or Dihydrotachysterol and thus can be misleading) (There is no evidence that Dihydrotachysterol has any bearing on hair loss, furthermore Dihydrotachysterol is a Vitamin D analog while Dihydrotestosterone is not) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razgrz (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Razgrz (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)