Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Drug class & drug classification – does anyone know of an appropriate redirect? I'm rather surprised we don't actually have either (at least) a stub covering the topic on either page or have the terms redirected to an appropriate page/section covering it, especially considering Template:Infobox drug class is used in articles about a drug class (e.g., see SSRI). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The closest I've seen is Drug nomenclature, but that's not quite what you're after. I suppose the problem is that there are so many different ways of classifying drugs, which is why we have so many entries in Category:Pharmacological classification systems. Despite (or perhaps 'because of') it being a rather nebulous topic, I think that it would be worth writing something on Drug class. Klbrain (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
As Klbrain writes: many ways of classifying drugs. From this, {{Infobox drug class}} is incomplete and chaotic, I'd suggest it be merged into {{Drugbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the most widely used classification systems is the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System. Another less formal system that is widely used in the literature in to classify drugs based on their biological target (e.g., ACE inhibitor, Beta blocker, Fibrate, etc.). Perhaps a List of drug classes article would be most appropriate. Drug class ≠ drug, hence merging {{Infobox drug class}} into {{Drugbox}} makes no sense. Most of the drug specific fields in the later are not appropriate for the former. Also precisely what is chaotic and incomplete about the former? Boghog (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This PMID 18999016 citation seems quite relevant. Also from
Drugs can be classified in different ways according to:
Merging the drug class infobox into the drugbox template sounds like a good idea IMO. Boghog's citations should be sufficient to create/cite a stub on drug class - I'll go ahead and create it within the next day or 2 if it's still a redlink by then. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Why exactly would merging these two infoboxes be a good idea? If you look closely, there is actually very little overlap in the data fields. Furthermore the merger would just create a larger more complex template confusing editors by making it harder to locate the relevant fields for a drug class. Finally the merger would create a lot of unnecessary work. Better to keep them separate. Boghog (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
One distinct advantage of of keeping a separate {{Infobox drug class}} template is that it makes it easy to locate drug class articles. Boghog (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Why merging {{Infobox drug class}} into {{drugbox}}? Already drugbox has classification fields like ATC and legal status (by country). And today it looks 'chaotic' because the info is not structured. Especially it does not say to which classification system the class belongs. Boghog starts with listing two, next to ATC and legal status. One can also see the a flaw by checking whether the box is used on a classification system article, on a distinct class of a system, and or on a plain drug article. That is: is the article about: a classification system, a class, or about a drug?). -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
None of the drug or drug class articles are about classification systems. We have very few drug classification system articles and the ones we do have are listed here. These generally do not tranclude infoboxes of any kind. Maintaining a separate {{Infobox drug class}} template makes clear that articles that transcludes it are about drug classes and not individual drugs. Merging the two templates would make the situation more chaotic, not less. If |ATC_prefix= is used, then obviously the ATC classification system is used. |Biological_target= is used, then the target classification system is used. It is possible that both could be used in the same article, because sometimes the two classification systems closely overlap. In other cases, they don't. I know this is messy, but it is unavoidable and is a direct result of differences in the two classification schemes. Merging templates will not remove this ambiguity. Also the information in the {{Infobox drug class}} does not need to be structured because there are relatively few fields. Finally the legal status by country should probably be removed from is not included in the {{Infobox drug class}} together because the status of individual drugs within a class often vary. Boghog (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
After adding "Identifiers" and "Clinical data" section headers, the data in {{Infobox drug class}} is now structured. Boghog (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 Done Drug class stub created. Boghog (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
"None of the drug or drug class articles are about classification systems." - then delete {{Infobox drug class}} for incorrect name. Really, keep in mind the diff between "classification system" and "class of a classification system".
"the information in the {{Infobox drug class}} does not need to be structured ..."? Nonsense.
Maybe I could agree on keeping the infobox if it is structured about classification & and their classes. Now let's check infobox usage at: vitamin B, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E. Lot of work to do in those 39, and for example don't mistake a mixture/group of compounds for a class.
Quite simple: if classification system X is OK for wikipedia (notable etc), then {{Drugbox}} should have datarow with fact |class X=, with a substantial label (=lefthand side) link to that class. Otherwise: not. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Why and by what are these a "class"? 5-HT3 antagonist, Statin, Nitrovasodilator, [1], but none of [2]? -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Classification system ≠ individual class. We have a hierarchy of drug classification and individual drug articles:

  1. Drug class – types of classification systems – no infobox
  2. ATC, SNOMED, and more informally Biological target – specific classification systems – no infobox
  3. individual drug classes – {{Infobox drug class}}
  4. individual drugs – {{Infobox drug}}

{{Infobox drug class}} is meant to contain information about individual classes, not classification systems and hence is properly named. The only systematic drug classification system that is widely used is the ATC system. Less structured but still widely used classification systems are based on the Biological target (& Mechanism of action) and/or Chemical class. The ATC system sometimes but not always contains information about the biological target or chemical class. Hence we should have identifiers for all three:

  1. ATC – |ATC_prefix=
  2. Biological target – |Biological_target= & Mechanism of action – |Mechanism_of_action=
  3. Chemical class – |Chemical_class=

In answer to your questions about how specific drug classes are defined:

The {{Infobox drug class}} is already structured since it has an external links section. We could further improve the structure by replacing "External links" with "Class identifiers" and adding "Clinical data" headings. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine to merge the two simply to have a centralized drug-related infobox; the drugbox template is much more visible than the drug class template, so its visibility could promote the use of the drug class infobox if merged. I don't necessarily think it should be merged unless someone is willing to put in the work to implement it so that it looks (roughly) identical and includes the same data fields as before. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Merging would cause confusion as to which fields are appropriate to use. For that reason alone, merging is a clearly bad idea. In addition, merging would eliminate a good way to track drug class articles. Finally merging would create unnecessary work that would be better spent on deploying the {{Infobox drug class}} more widely. This would do far more to raise the visibility of the template than burying it in a subsection of the drugbox where no one will notice it. Merging the template will decrease, not increase its visibility. I will happily work on deploying the existing template more widely but I will not spend a millisecond on merging it.
  • Also, I would appreciate some feedback on how the sandbox version looks (see test cases). Boghog (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that the templates look good, noting that of course not all subheadings will be appropriate for all ways of categorizing drugs; that is true for all infoboxes. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it looks good too. But it is a little confusing that the links in "clinical section" are external links when there is a section named external links. I suggest to add the external link symbol. Christian75 (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Your revised version of the drug class template is definitely an improvement over the original. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the very first testcase is Propranolol: a single chemical compound. In other words, it is an individual drug. But here it is transformned into being a class by a property. This way, individual drug could be called a "class" by some property. This is the error made: propranolol is member of a class. It does not define the class. (correctly, the article has {{drugbox}}). -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, propranolol is a member of a class and is used as an example of that class as the caption makes clear. It is not meant to define the class, only to represent it. We have zillions of articles about more general subjects that contain graphics of specific examples to represent the more general topic. And this is not an otherstuff argument. If otherstuff is common, it by definition means its application has community consensus. Boghog (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right. -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 1. re "{{Infobox drug class}} is meant to contain information about individual classes" Well, that should be in the top of the /doc of course. And, quite essential, the ~first parameter should be |part of classifiation system=.
2. A class added from another system (like ATC in a Biological target class), that should be under subheader like: "class name in other classification systems". It should not suggest that a class is identified by that other class. -DePiep (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Re #1: asked and answered above. To reiterate, If |ATC_prefix= is used, then obviously the ATC classification system is used. |Biological_target= is used, then the target classification system is used.
  • Re #2: Most of the articles that we have about individual drug classes do not correspond exactly to an entry in a formal system like ATC. Rather they are used informally in the biomedical literature and their use is backed up by multiple reliable secondary sources, hence notable, but not necessarily defined in ATC. This is particularly true of new classes of research drugs that have not yet been been approved for human use. Boghog (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I can articulate this well enough, but it think the best article title would be drug classification.
Wouldn't it be better to have the subheader read, like: Drug classification system: Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (into a regular label-value pair). As it is now, it is a bit wierd. For example, in {{Building}} we do not have Building in top: this should be in the lede ('X is a drug class'). -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on whether we call the article "drug class" or "drug classification" although I do prefer the former as being simpler. The lead in drug class first states that a drug class is a related set of drugs and then lists several ways in which they can be classified. The definition of the various classification systems follows logically from the definition of a class. In short, class is the more fundamental concept. A regular label-value label pair would make sense if there was a one-to-one correspondence between specific drug class articles and drug classification systems. This is usually not the case. There are several partially overlapping classification systems, and most drug class articles can be mapped to more than one classification system. Because of this one-to-several relationship, the infobox contains several label-value pairs under the heading of "classification identifiers". Boghog (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I gently disagree. The article describes classifiction, of which classes are an outcome. So that points to the order of concepts: the classification defines the classes, not the other way around. (and so "class is the more fundamental concept" is wrong wrt "classification"). Renaming would nicely leave a redirect, of course.
Later more about the second thing. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Iodine (125I) CC49 deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iodine (125I) CC49. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Patiromer for DYK

Just so you know. Template:Did you know nominations/Patiromer. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Drugbox types are categorised now

I have created these categories, populated by {{Infobox drug}}:

Category:Drugs by type

The default (drug=single chemical) is not categorised. These listings might be useful for those who follow vaccines, m.antibodies etc. Also, there are some "?" markers (unknown value) to be checked. Comments at Template talk:Infobox drug please. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

How should we manage history articles?

I classified Project 523 as a mid importance article, since it led to the creation of a new class of drugs that includes another mid class article, but am unsure of this. The current importance assessment framework makes no mention of pharmacologists or events in pharmacology, only of drugs themselves and major scientific concepts in the field. Right now, History of pharmacy is rated mid importance, despite being such a broad, overarching topic. History of Aspirin is rated high importance. We need a better, more structured way in which to classify these articles, and update the template to reflect that.

My idea is as follows (please provide feedback!):

  • Top: History of pharmacy and very few others pertaining to Pharmacology as a science.
  • High: Articles on histories of major drug classes. Ex. History of opiates <--article does not currently exist; example purely illustrative.
  • Medium: Articles on histories of lead drugs in classes, or less clinically significant drug classes. Ex. History of aspirin
  • Low: Articles on histories of drugs classified as Medium or Low importance. Ex. History of benzonatate <--also does not exist

-- Thereppy (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"History of x" sounds good. Typically I would say most of this would be low in importance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Tetulomab

I'm not qualified to do more than fix the citation format on this in-development cancer drug article, and some red flags (ELs to company website; one source from 1985 and another declaring major COI) made me want to let y'all look it over. Thanks, FourViolas (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting an Assessment of Nintedanib Article

Dear WP:Pharmacology Community,
I am posting here to highlight a number of inconsistencies within a page on your site regarding the medical treatment nintedanib, which is indicated for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)*. My reason for contacting you is to share my concerns that the information on this page might cause confusion for patients and physicians, and I urge the WP: Pharmacology community to edit this article; making it therefore a factual and balanced source of information.
The current layout of information on the page could be unclear for patients as it is hard to easily differentiate which information is relevant to the use of nintedanib within NSCLC and which information relates to IPF. One example of this is the current dosing information written in the nintedanib article. The article states that the maximum tolerated dose of nintedanib when taken once a day is 200mg. However for the treatment of IPF, nintedanib (brand name OFEV®) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission with the recommended dose of 150 mg twice daily, administered approximately 12 hours apart. This dosing is different for treatment of locally advanced, metastatic or locally recurrent NSCLC of adenocarcinoma tumour history after first-line chemotherapy when used in combination with docetaxel, the recommended dose of nintedanib (brand name VARGATEF®), which is 200mg twice daily administered approximately 12 hours apart. As you can see this could potentially bring misinformation or confusion to any reader of the page – including patients.
I fully appreciate that as an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim - manufacturers of nintedanib - I have a conflict of interest and will therefore not take any direct action to edit this information myself. In the past (Jan 2015 and Mar 2015), I suggested previous edits to the Pharmacology community via the Talk page, but have seen little change in the article itself. I would be happy to work with you to provide any further information, data or additional resources about nintedanib that would be helpful if you were to consider updating this information. In particular we can provide further information to support updates to the following outdated sections:

  • • Medical Uses and Current Clinical trials: ‘Results from randomized controlled trials look promising as of 2014’ and ‘a phase III clinical trial was underway examining the safety and efficacy of nintedanib on patients with the non-cancerous lung condition idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.’
    • o Current status of trials: For the treatment of IPF nintedanib has been studied in a comprehensive clinical trial programme including the Phase II TOMORROW dose finding trial, the Phase III INPULSIS®-1 and 2 trials as well as the open-label INPULSIS®-ON extension trial. Results from INPULSIS®-1 and -2 were presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) International Conference and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2014. In addition results from INPULSIS®-ON and sub-analyses of the INPULSIS® trials were presented at the European Respiratory Society Congress in September 2015.
  • Mechanism of Action: Currently no information is included in relation to IPF.
    • Nintedanib mode of action: Nintedanib targets growth factor receptors, which have been shown to be involved in the mechanisms by which pulmonary fibrosis occurs. Most importantly nintedanib inhibits platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). It is believed that nintedanib reduces disease progression in IPF and slows the decline in lung function by blocking the signalling pathways that are involved in fibrotic processes.
  • History: ‘Nintedanib was approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis on Oct 15, 2014 by the FDA. This was under the brand name Ofev; in 2014 by the United States Food and Drug Administration and in 2015 by the European Commission.’
    • Current status of approvals: Approvals for the treatment of IPF have now been granted by Health Canada, The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan, Swissmedic among others and is under regulatory review by health authorities in other countries (as of 21st October 2015).


We look forward to hearing your insights and hopefully working to make nintedanib a more complete Wikipedia article.

Yours sincerely, Lismmq (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Posted a link at WT:MED Sizeofint (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be great if you could give independent sources, especially for the mechanism. Thanks for your input! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Lismmq. Thanks for the note. If you haven't seen it before, then you might enjoy reading Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia.
It would be really helpful if you could point us at a few sources that support the claims. I'm sure you're already aware that anyone can show up and claim to be from a company, so we tend to be cautious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


Dear ἀνυπόδητος, Ozzie10aaaa, WhatamIdoing and the WP:Pharmacology community, I've included some sources below. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you! Lismmq (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Approvals, Dosing and MOA

Claim: The article states that the maximum tolerated dose of nintedanib when taken once a day is 200mg. However for the treatment of IPF, nintedanib (brand name OFEV®) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission with the recommended dose of 150 mg twice daily, administered approximately 12 hours apart.
Claim: Nintedanib mode of action: Nintedanib targets growth factor receptors, which have been shown to be involved in the mechanisms by which pulmonary fibrosis occurs. Most importantly nintedanib inhibits platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). It is believed that nintedanib reduces disease progression in IPF and slows the decline in lung function by blocking the signalling pathways that are involved in fibrotic processes.
Claim: History: ‘Nintedanib was approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis on Oct 15, 2014 by the FDA. This was under the brand name Ofev; in 2014 by the United States Food and Drug Administration and in 2015 by the European Commission.’

  • Current status of approvals: Approvals for the treatment of IPF have now been granted by Health Canada, The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan, Swissmedic among others and is under regulatory review by health authorities in other countries (as of 21st October 2015).



Supporting Links:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/205832s000lbl.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm418994.htm
http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003821/WC500182474.pdf
http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/003821/human_med_001834.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/rds-sdr/drug-med/rds_sdr_ofev_176043-eng.php
https://www.swissmedic.ch/zulassungen/00153/00189/00200/02936/index.html?lang=en

Current Status of Trials:

Claim: For the treatment of IPF nintedanib has been studied in a comprehensive clinical trial programme including the Phase II TOMORROW dose finding trial, the Phase III INPULSIS®-1 and 2 trials as well as the open-label INPULSIS®-ON extension trial. Results from INPULSIS®-1 and -2 were presented at the American Thoracic Society (ATS) International Conference and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2014.

Supporting Links:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1103690
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1402584
https://cms.psav.com/cPaper2012/myitinerary/publication-63779.html?congress=ats2015
https://cms.psav.com/cPaper2012/myitinerary/publication-63819.html?congress=ats2015
https://cms.psav.com/cPaper2012/myitinerary/publication-64594.html?congress=ats2015
https://cms.psav.com/cPaper2012/myitinerary/publication-64545.html?congress=ats2015

Claim: In addition results from INPULSIS®-ON and sub-analyses of the INPULSIS® trials were presented at the European Respiratory Society Congress in September 2015.

Supporting Links:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(15)00421-X/abstract

Status

I keep hoping to get back to this. Has anyone else had a chance to use some of these sources to correct these articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the errors pointed out by Lismmq have been fixed, but the sources they gave probably contain a lot of material that could be added to the article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Drugbox update

I've just added TemplateData for the parameters in {{drugbox}}. I don't think I missed any, but I can't be certain, because there are a lot of them.

I'd really appreciate it if someone else would take a turn, especially for the purpose of providing descriptions and examples for the parameters (anything you'd like to be reminded of, like it's "Aspirin.png", not "File:Aspirin.png"). Also, which ones would you like to pop up when you insert a new drugbox on a page? Those should all be marked as "suggested". ("Required" is reserved for situations when skipping the parameter causes the template to break/emit error messages.) At this time, there's no way to express dependencies between parameters ("if type=vacc, then give me this list"), but I think we can do everything else that we would want here.

If you want to have a go, then edit the /doc page, wait for a few seconds, and then click the "Manage TemplateData" button that appears at the top. That will open a large dialog box that allows you to change all the information for every parameter (and add new ones, too), without having to get the JSON formatting exactly right. "Label" is what the editor will see (usually a spelled-out version of the parameter name). "Description" is a plain-text description (no links!), and "Example" is an exact example of what should be typed into the field (e.g., Aspirin.png). Don't forget that when you're done, you will still need to save the page, exactly as if you had typed it directly into the wikitext editing window!

If you have questions or need help, then please {{ping}} me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing is this for VE? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Although technically TemplateData can be read and processed by other software, the only use I expect for this one is people using the visual editor to add or edit drugboxes here. IMO it would be nice to get this "perfect" and then translate/export it to the other Wikipedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Tempting then to remove them all (maybe even cheat by mentioning them in the alternative single parameter |chemical_formula= helptext). -DePiep (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I am just learning about Wikipedia:TemplateData from this post and I already see it in wide use. Has this been described in that VisualEditor newsletter? Is there a narrative or journalism which makes this easy to understand? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been mentioned off and on for almost two years in WP:VisualEditor/Updates, but I don't think that we have achieved "easy to understand" yet.
"Why anyone should care" may be easier to show than to tell, so click here and try to insert an infobox in each of the three available methods, using nothing more than what you see in the editing system itself:
  1. Go to the Insert menu, and choose Template.
  2. Type Infobox drug in the blank, and click "Add template". Try to fill it in and insert it.
  3. Go back to the Insert menu, and choose Template again.
  4. Type Infobox school in the blank, and click "Add template". Try to fill it in and insert it.
  5. Click the "[[ ]]" button in the toolbar (next to the save button) and switch to wikitext. Add Infobox organization – without looking it up or copying it.
So that's "why": Even though the TemplateData I've added to {{drugbox}} is mediocre (e.g., insufficient examples), and even though it is one of the most complex infoboxes on the English Wikipedia, someone who knows nothing about this template except its name can realistically fill in the blanks and (usually) get a passable result because of the help that TemplateData provides. It's much harder the other ways, even though I suggested particularly easy infoboxes for those. You either have to stop editing and go look up the documentation every single time, or you have to guess repeatedly (was that |start= or |founding=? |address= or |location= or |headquarters=?).
In terms of "how to do it", it's not difficult to get started, especially for simpler templates, but the documentation has never been great, and is currently poor. There's a small project in hand to update the documentation, but I'm not very hopeful about the probability of a grand success right now.
Feel free to ask more questions. I'm happy to talk about this, if anyone's interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

New user needs help with Calcipotriol/betamethasone

See User talk:DrDCook (and the latest edits to Calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate). I'll be away for (probably) two weeks from Saturday morning. Help for DrDCook would be much appreciated. Thanks, guys! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

2C-T-x are no meaningful MAOIs

All the 2C-T-x substances contain a MAOI warning, with the same reference, Sulfur-Substituted α-Alkyl Phenethylamines as Selective and Reversible MAO-A Inhibitors:  Biological Activities, CoMFA Analysis, and Active Site Modeling.

However, it appears whoever added all these warnings failed to understand the study. The alpha-methyl analogues (which are stronger MAOIs compared to their phenethylamine counterparts) of the 2C-T-x series are weaker MAOIs than plain amphetamine! As the study says, the 2,5-dimethoxy groups greatly diminish MAO inhibition.

Whatever causes the 2C-T-x series to be more dangerous (unpredictable strong stimulation?) than the 2C-x fmaily, it's not MAO inhibition. Should these warnings therefore be removed from the 2C-T-x articles? Aethyta (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If they are not supported by the source then they should be removed. Sizeofint (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about generally considering articles from predatory publishers unreliable

There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I initially appreciate your invitation, but on second thought I'd better not engage. Who knows what happens with my input. -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
:) Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Naming convention for interleukins

This is a proposal to have a consistent naming convention for interleukins (including abbreviated formats) and associated clinical treatments eg interleukin-6 receptor antagonists. Currently various naming conventions are used. The example given below is mostly in line with medical subject headings (MeSH) used in the US Nat.Lib of Medicine, such as in PubMed.

interleukin-1 (IL-1), interleukin-1 alpha (IL-1A), interleukin-1 beta (IL-1B), interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA).

Thoughts on this are appreciated. Mangofast (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd support the use of either MeSH subject headings (as you've suggested; e.g. IL-6) or a ligand database like Guide to Pharmacology (from IUPHAR and the British Pharmacological Society). I wouldn't use the gene name (for example, IL6), on the grounds that the gene and the protein it encodes are not synonymous because of both alternative splicing and post-translational modification. In many cases the protein name also has (historical) precedence and greater currency. Klbrain (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I would also support standardizing these names to include hyphens (see previous discussion and MCB MOS). Boghog (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. (Will be making a few edits here and there). Regarding antagonists, should these be grouped (in article title ‘hierarchy’) as interleukin antagonists? (e.g. interleukin-6 antagonists). [It seems that “anti-interleukins” can be directed against the interleukin molecule itself, or its receptor. I think both would be regarded as ‘antagonists’ in classical pharmacology]. Or, should they be distinguished, at a title level, separately as interleukin-6 antibody, interleukin-6 receptor antagonist (IL-6RA or IL-6ra), or something else? May be it doesn't really matter so long an article is clear. There does seem to be use of anti-interleukin-6. Mangofast (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the term "antagonist" does work for drugs acting on the receptor or on the interleukin itself. The IUPHAR nomenclature guide defined antagonists as:NC-IUPHAR Nomenclature Guidelines

A drug that reduces the action of another drug, generally an agonist. Many antagonists act at the same receptor macromolecule as the agonist. Antagonism may also result from combination with the substance being antagonized (chemical antagonism). Functional antagonism occurs at cellular sites distinct from the receptor mediating the agonist response.

Klbrain (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Klbrain and others - what do you think of using interleukin inhibitors (instead of interleukin antagonists) as a broad title heading and category for these agents - this article title would cover most 'anti-interleukins' regardless of their mechanism of action? Mangofast (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC) The IUPHAR guidelines are handy. And just discovered that many of these products are already classed as interleukin inhibitors under the ATC code L04AC for which there is an article title already started, ATC code L04. Mangofast (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the ATC use of "inhibitor", it probably is best to stick with this term. Elsewhere in pharmacology "antagonists" tends to be used for drug-receptor interaction, with the term "inhibitors" used for enzymes. However, it does seem that for antibodies the term inhibitor is more widespread (as reflected by the ATC code). Klbrain (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks for advice here. I will close this discussion shortly as this seems to be mostly uncontentious. Mangofast (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Drug laws

I feel a bit lost at times when it comes to drug laws, mainly interpreting the vague ones of Canada and USA. Are cathinones illegal in Canada? Mephedrone says yes, Methylone says no. If Mephedrone is indeed considered to be an analogue of amphetamine, shouldn't this apply to all cathinones and likely pyrrolidinophenones as well?

In the US, the controlled substance act is just as annoying. Example: α-PHP is a structural isomer of pyrovalerone and should therefore be considered illegal. Just kidding, not even law makers believe that. Virginia (and a few other states) for example recently banned it specifically. They wouldn't have done that if it was already covered by another law.

On some articles the legal information is "could be scheduled as an analogue of X" in the drugbox. How are we supposed to enter accurate legal data if countries ignore their own law and only selectively enforce it at will?

Unless a substance is specifically banned, it should be considered legal and have no entry in the drugbox?

Because apparently that's the case, more so in the US than Canada (the latter having some better worded blanket bans on various substance classes). Aethyta (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Federal Analog Act is obnoxiously vague. If it is not explicitly scheduled I would just say "Unscheduled but may illegal for human consumption under the Federal Analog Act". Of course it would be best if there is a reference that supports saying so. Sizeofint (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
re Sizeofint: A RS saying that it may be illegal - not very helpful? Fiirst solutions are those that have been tried in court (as RS). Those remaining could best be "unknown" legal status. In general, if the law is unclear we can not improve that here. btw, I don't think the Virginia case would be accepted in other states. Lawpeople are very sensitive to their own jurisdiction. -DePiep (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, which brings us back to my main point: "Who are we to interpret vague laws?". We just can't. Which is why I think that there shouldn't be a drugbox entry in such cases. Legal until proven otherwise if not explicitly controlled? Aethyta (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The UK looks likely to pass a Psychoactive Substances Bill which will make all psychoactive illegal unless they are specifically excluded, much like the Irish "Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances)" bill. So, an assumption of legality may not work in the UK for much longer.Klbrain (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
You're missing the point, that law is at least consistent and not really open to interpretation. Besides, the current UK law is very specific on what's banned or not. The main problem are the vague US and Canada laws. Aethyta (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we could just leave it out of the infobox and explain the situation in the "Legal status" section. Sizeofint (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
A complicated area. It seems that the Wikipedia 'Legal status' within the Drugbox is mostly used to describe the status of a drug in relation to prescribing (eg prescription only, or other classification) or as controlled within pharmacy settings (eg appropriate storage and control). 'Legal status' does not work so well for illicit drugs and compounds that are yet to be classified or scheduled. (Perhaps the term 'Legal status' needs a slight revision, or it should be reserved for 'approved' medicines only). Often regulators have difficulty keeping up with classifying new compounds that are specifically generated to evade laws. To your question, I think it is better to state "unkown" (as suggested already) or "undetermined". Such a status will be common for many new compounds - illicit or otherwise. Mangofast (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI, "Controlled" in UK is about illicit drugs, not storage. IMO, 'legal' does cover the simple range otc - Rx-only - illegal so is OK (full list here, folded). There is also like |Licence_EU= (think med approval and 'label information') and |pregnancy_US=. -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

LSD is not an abbreviation of Lysergic acid diethylamide, is it

Interestingly but still wrong, editor Sfarney maintains that "LSD" is an abbreviation of Lysergic acid diethylamide. Tried to convince them but so far no end. Can others take a look and help to keep the lede (and the editors involved) ok? -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the the LSD page/discussion and decided not to enter that edit war, which seems to have been resolved (including an edit ban ...). LSD is an abbreviation for this compound. Specifically

LSD see Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD)

— Index, Rang and Dale's Pharmacology, 7th Edition, p762
Note that this is a commonly used UK undergraduate pharmacology textbook. Also the IUPHAR/BPS database entry uses LSD as the header for (+)-lysergic acid diethylamide.

Klbrain (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC) it's not its from the german name Lyserg-säure-diäthylamid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:EE2:600:900:3D57:38B8:5C30:C8CA (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)sorry, forgot to sign it 2A00:EE2:600:900:3D57:38B8:5C30:C8CA (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC) orange_wizard6000

My wife ...

My wife suffers from severe case of advanced asthma which a recent visit to the doctor revealed for the first time in twenty years that her asthma is allergens based. They are testing her blood and skin for possible treatment with Xolair which will be injected.

However during the visit the doctor used or referred to a medical terminology which we cannot find or do not know what it means. The terminology is AER? It has something to do with either the type of Asthma or the Respiratory Condition my wife currently is suffering from. '

Can you provide me some insight on this terminology?

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.105.200 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, unfortunately this encyclopedia (book) can not give individual support. Our intention is, that you can find general information. e.g., by reading topics.
Could be: Asthma, Xolair, AER (?), Respiratory Condition (red=does not exist) -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
asthma exacerbation rate (AER) is mentioned in one of the pdfs about Xolair. Meodipt (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Brian, dispensing medical advice of any type , or any step in that direction, is prohibited at Wikipedia; here is the encyclopedia's medical disclaimer (click this link, [3]). Best wishes in finding the expertise and answers you need from trained medical professionals. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for discussion

The image in the following article extract was removed as incomprehensible, and violating WP:UNDUE. I opposed removal of the image, and lost in a vote of 1:1 to the article overseer. There is essentially little or no other choice for images, currently, at Wikimedia Commons suitable for the article—I spent considerable time reviewing all of them—and so one is forced to use an example such as this, rather than a better illustration of concept, or accept a article lacking any image to open. (At present, one is faced with a wall of text and equations, and no image.) Otherwise, a great deal of work went into relating the image to the lede (which has, immediately adjacent, definitions of the title concept, and the variables). The only stretching of the reader that I perceive is that the legend has to introduce permeability, in making the case that the title concept underpins practical understandings of that important biomedical concept. In short, I believe that the image adds interest, will be immediately understandable to many at its face, be understandable to many more readers on reading alongside the lede, and even more if the wikilinks are used.

My question here, is, "Is the following image appropriate, or inappropriate for this article, given the presence of no other currently suitable?" I am including the extract because it is easier to interpret and respond to the issues with the image seen alongside the text, rather than as a diff ± the image.

Extended content
Drug/compound permeability in brain capillaries, as a function of compound partition coefficient. Measured or computed partition coefficients correlate with behaviour important to understanding and predicting the disposition of exogenous molecules in biological systems. Plot, from Bodor and Buchwald, of a group of chemical compounds, including solvents and drugs, presenting the permeability coefficient (as log PC) of compounds in rat brain capillaries (ordinate, units, centimeters per second), as a function of the measured octanol-water partition coefficient, (as log P, abscissa, dimensionless). The insets in the upper left and lower right quadrants represent Transport and Efflux, active processes that move compounds off the diagonal line of high correlation.[1] (Labels are in German, but English terms are either identical or readily understandable cognates, e.g., oktanol and octanol, caffein and caffeine, wasser and water, vincristin and vincristine, etc.)

In the physical and related biological sciences, a partition coefficient (P) or distribution coefficient (D) is the ratio of concentrations of a compound in a mixture of two immiscible phases at equilibrium, one generally hydrophilic ("water-loving"), the other hydrophobic ("water-fearing"). Because of the range of values observed, the coefficients are typically expressed as logarithms, log P and log D, respectively. For example, the first of these is defined in its most simple case, for a solute A that does not ionize, as log P = log ( [A]hydrophobic / [A]hydrophilic), where [A] is the concentration of solute A in the "hydrophobic" and "hydrophilic" phases, respectively. Both log P and log D are understood to describe the difference in solubility of the compound in the two phases, and log P to describe the hydrophobicity (and lipophilicity) of the compound. For most compounds, the parameters can be measured experimentally in various ways (by shake-flask, HPLC, etc.) or estimated via calculation based on a variety of methods (fragment-based, atom-based, etc.).

In the chemical and pharmaceutical sciences, the two phases are often restricted to mean two immiscible solvents. In this context, a partition coefficient is the equilibrium ratio of concentrations of a compound between the two phases of a mixture of two immiscible liquids whose properties are relevant to physiological applications.[2] Hence, normally one of the solvents chosen is an aqueous solution, while the second is hydrophobic, akin in its properties to biological lipid phases, typically 1-octanol.[3] Hence, both coefficients are a practical means by which a chemical substance's hydrophilic or hydrophobic nature can be measured or computationally estimated in research and development contexts. Partition coefficients, in particular, are useful in estimating the distribution of drugs within the body. Hydrophobic drugs with high octanol/water partition coefficients are preferentially distributed to hydrophobic compartments such as the lipid bilayers of cells, while hydrophilic drugs (low octanol/water partition coefficients) preferentially are found in aqueous compartments such as blood serum.[4]

More broadly applied, if one of the solvents is a gas and the other a liquid, a gas/liquid partition coefficient can be described, and takes the same as the dimensionless form of the Henry's law constant.[not verified in body] For example, the blood/gas partition coefficient of a general anesthetic measures how easily the anesthetic passes from gas to blood. [not verified in body] Partition coefficients can also be defined between liquids and solids, for instance, when one is a molten meta and the other the solid metal,[5] or when both are solids as in solid solutions.[not verified in body]

The IUPAC has deemed the term partition coefficient is to be "obsolete,"[6] and recommends use of the most appropriate rigorous term —e.g., partition constant, defined as (KD)A = [A]org / [A]aq, where KD is the process equilibrium constant, [A] represents the concentration of solute A being tested, and "org" and "aq" refer to the organic and aqueous phases, respectively; also recommended is "partition ratio" for cases where transfer activity coefficients can be determined, and "distribution ratio" for the ratio of total analytical concentrations of a solute between phases, regardless of chemical form.[6]

  1. ^ "Recent advances in the brain targeting of neuropharmaceuticals by chemical delivery systems". Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 36: 229–254. 1999. PMID 10837718. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)[verification needed]
  2. ^ Leo A, Hansch C, and Elkins D (1971). "Partition coefficients and their uses". (secondary). Chem Rev. 71 (6): 525–616. doi:10.1021/cr60274a001.
  3. ^ Sangster J (1997). Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients: Fundamentals and Physical Chemistry. (secondary). Wiley Series in Solution Chemistry. Vol. 2. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ISBN 978-0-471-97397-3.
  4. ^ Shargel L, Susanna WP, Yu AB (2012). "Chapter 10: Physiological Drug Distribution and Protein Binding". Applied Biopharmaceutics & Pharmacokinetics. (secondary) (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Medical. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-07-160393-5.
  5. ^ Stallman R, Ngan A (2014). "Chapter 3: Solidification". Modern Physical Metallurgy. (secondary) (8th ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 93–120, esp. 106ff. ISBN 978-0-08-098204-5.
  6. ^ a b Wilkinson AM, McNaught AD (1997). "Partition Coefficient". Compendium of Chemical Terminology: IUPAC Recommendations. (secondary). Oxford: Blackwell Science. doi:10.1351/goldbook. ISBN 0-86542-684-8. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Please review and reply below. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is about partition coefficients, not drug permeability in brain capillaries. Also the lead has become overly pendantic. Hence I have restored the previous stable version which IMHO is easier to understand. Boghog (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course you did. WIthout discussion/Talk. And in its entirety. Your article, your call, as always. All the better, then, that Pharmacol project members can see the original above.
Otherwise, reverting you on principle, as you did not discuss, or look for any value in the edits (as is often the case at your articles). I expect you to win this one 1:1, again, since it is you I engage, Oh Sovereign One. Cheers, all. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here. Boghog (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruthenium anti-cancer drugs

The article Ruthenium anti-cancer drugs has multiple sections that make biomedical claims for efficacy against cancer, as well as stating modes of action, that are unsupported by secondary sources. I've left a note on the talk page that WP:MEDRS applies in these cases and proposed deleting those sections in the absence of good-quality secondary sources. I'd be grateful if any WP PHARM members could find time to see if anything might be salvageable before I take an axe to the article. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've commented there, to the effect that I think the rationally possible uses should be included, but not emphasized in as much detail as there. MEDRS applies to the actual practice of clinical medicine , as a way of distinguishing both quackery and unsubstantiated reports from accepted science. Some of the material there needs condensation, and detail oor some of the e clinical trials needs to be reduced, but I would object to going further. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

First sentence of MDMA

Being discussed here in a RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative names

Many substances have a lot of alternative names. We have two properties in the infobox to handle this

IMO the first sentence should contain the main one or two names. So for example the official med name plus the first brandname with other brandnames in the infobox. Or the drug name / official name plus one common slang term.

I disagree with placing this information also in a "note" right after the first word of the article. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Prefer to use a note if there's a number of names since cramming a giant list into an infobox field just unnecessarily bloats the infobox. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
But at heroin the list is "already" in the infobox. The question is should it "also" be after the first word in a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Alternate names should generally be listed in the lead, either in a note or in the 1st sentence. They should also be bolded. The reason for this is that if someone looks up an alternate name and redirects to the page, the lead text would clarify the relationship between the page title and the term that was searched. If there's a lot of names, a Names/Terminology section might be appropriate. I don't think it's a good practice to move alternate names out of the lead entirely and into an infobox field, because the purpose of an infobox is to concisely summarize information that is covered in an article (see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The options we're considering should be: a names section and synonyms parameter; a note in the lead and a synonyms parameter; or just a names section or lead note w/o a synonyms parameter. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that a Redirect page requires that the redirect titled be mentioned in the lede. That is not part of the Redirect principle. (While of course, there could be other reasons to mention that name). Also, it is not required that any searchword that leads to an article is required to be mentioned (defined) in the lede. Even better: having it (only) in the infobox helps finding the right page.
re the Infoboxpurpose: I am surprised by what it says. I don't think our infoboxes are following that guideline (e.g., buildings, countries: is all that info present in the body text?). So I'd reject application of that guideline because it is not exact any more. -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I should clarify. I meant redirects from notable alternate names (i.e., the ones that would be expected to receive a nontrivial amount of search traffic), not redirects in general. The point of doing what I've described is to make it clear to a reader who isn't familiar with the name of the article that the article title is equivalent to the redirected alternate name. In any event, if an article doesn't cover something which is stated in the infobox, there's a problem with the article, not the infobox; content shouldn't be deleted from it simply because the article is lacking. I also should've mentioned earlier that it's WP:ALTNAME which lists both footnotes and a "Names"/"Etymology" section as options to consider for articles with a number notable alternate names. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I would favor handling this on a case-by-case basis. If alternate names are common they should be mentioned in the lead, but it isn't good to have a long list of obscure alternates cluttering up the text. Looie496 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • FYI, |tradename= is for drug product synonyms, |synonyms= (and |IUPCAC_name=!) is for drug substance (chemicals) synonyms. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Where do we put slang terms like "speed" and "ecstasy" then? Are ecstasy tablets a substance or a product? Sizeofint (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, but my knowledge is not an argument. In infobox title? -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with the OP: a few (important or common) names can be mentioned in the lede, the more complete list (can be dozens) goes in the infobox. Using a Note is unnecessary disruptive for the reader: it adds another variant to the footnote area. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
agree w/ DePiep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The complete list can be hundreds. Here is 8 pages for acetaminophen. http://www.bddrugs.com/product5.php?page=1&idn=436&prev1=&prev=&prev2= Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The list(s) in the infobox should be limited too (a dozen would be weird); is what I meant by "a more complete list". Anyway, a bit off-track. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Another argument to keep the lede list short: readability, both in actual reading and by glancing. Saying "punctuation, grammar and WP:FIRSTSENTENCE etc is OK, so the list of names is right there" is not enough. -DePiep (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure I am unsure of the details of this proposal, but I do support the idea of keeping the lede and introductory information short. Longer lists of synonyms can either go in the body of the article or on Wikidata. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
If you look here [4] you will notice synonyms in the note and in the infobox. Should they be in both places? Or just in the infobox and the body of the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Also see this done at amphetamine, methamphetamine, psilocybin, and MDMA. A discussion at Talk:MDMA prompted this discussion. Sizeofint (talk)
The wide variety of slang names seems mostly applicable to drugs of abuse (e.g. heroin, cocaine, etc) as regular prescription and OTC drugs don’t usually have them, just a shedload of trade names instead. Agree with comments that this is done on case-by-case basis, and that the first sentence should contain just the main one or two names, especially when a drug of misuse is also in common clinical use, such as diamorphine/Heroin. (For these particular drugs I would have thought that the full range of common alternate (“street”) names would be better detailed in the body of the article and, agree, not as footnotes. Where they go in the article I’m not sure but already there are sections such as Etymology and Society and Culture and these could be good spots). [At a tangent, not sure why Heroin - even though in common usage - is the title of the article, and not diamorphine which is redirected. It’s not quite consistent with entries for other drugs of misuse]. Mangofast (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good (and heroin is WP:commonname). -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Obviously we're getting off-topic here but krokodil is (as far as I can tell) the common name of desomorphine yet we do not use it for the article title. I think we're being inconsistent in our application of the guidelines. Sizeofint (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic indeed. -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • About very long lists of alternative names (say, more than 8 or 12 names). Note: maybe my wikidata note at the end solves this ;-). So far, we discussed the shorter lists. But chemicals (and maybe trade names too) can be very, very long. For example, aspirin: [5]. The trend in this discussion is that we don't need to list all of them (in lede or infobox). (Well, that's my opinion too so check me on this). BUT. There are reasons to actually list all of then in the article. Because: any search engine using an obscure name for Aspirin should lead to this page! So, technically all names should be in there, while for the reader they are not wanted. For this situation, I think we should allow a Note listing all of them. The win is that this illegible Note is outside of the Readable Area (a technical, listing in the ref and footnote area).
Example we don't want any more: InChI and SMILES, now in the infobox, are machine-based codes not useful for the human eye (and can be very long). They should be in the article to help search engines (to hit), but they better be out of Reader's sight.
Another note: wikidata has [6] for aspirin, and is designed to serve any search engine (and then link to enwiki's aspirin, or whatever language). -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

m:Grants:IdeaLab/Effective Engagement with Health Topic Experts using Guided Checklists

Hello everyone,

I created a new Individual Engagement grant to try and fix a problem. m:Grants:IdeaLab/Effective Engagement with Health Topic Experts using Guided Checklists

From my work with Cochrane as a Wikipedian in Residence and my observations of other attempts to engage health topic experts in editing, I've come to the conclusion that the quality of the contributions of new health topic expert recruits does not match their level of expertise and effort the we as Wikipedians put into training new medical editors. So, I decided to create a new project to develop a Guided Checklist that would assist a health topic expert in assessing the quality of a health information on Wikipedia, and then guide their contributions toward making edits to correct the lack of quality.

My individual engagement grant would involve interviewing health topic experts and active medical editors, as well as a community consultation on Wikipedia English WikiProject Med. Please add yourself as a volunteer if you would like to participate. Or leave suggestions on the talk page. Or endorse if you support the idea. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

See discussion importing content from protein database into WP

Here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology#Transporter_classification_database Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Article Request: Osman Kibar

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/04/13/the-god-pill/#5917b91df331 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.23.86 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_10&oldid=1137369732"