Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Hi!
2½ years after FDA redesigned their website we still have many broken links in articles. Some of them have been corrected, a few tagged with {{deadlink}}, but most lead into electronic nirvana. Have a look at two archives from 2009: here and at WP:MED. Feel free to jump in and document your fixes at User:MastCell/FDA_links (also a good entry point to note which articles might have dead references). Alfie↑↓© 14:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The header of your page seems to say we have to replace every occurrence of "http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/" with "http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/", leaving the rest of the addresses alone; which could easily be done with AWB. What about the links below, is there a simple rule how they should be replaced? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! It seems so. But note that links in the FOI-section are just a minor part of the broken ones. Concerning the other links: I haven’t been able to see any pattern. Many files follow the new ‘UCMXXXXXX.YYY’ terminology, but the site’s structure is totally different. Sometimes there is a redirect in place (especially warning letters), but leading not to the one you are aiming at but only to an overview of the year. :-( Alfie↑↓© 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Pity. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
My experience is that it was really annoying to correct most of the links. Perhaps we should ask MastCell to generate an updated list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:AIDS Compounds

Is there any reason to be using a separate template, {{AIDS Compounds}}, for this class of drugs? All other drugs use {{drugbox}}. ChemNerd (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 12#Template:AIDS Compounds. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The reason seems to be the NIAID-AIDS parameter, which is obviously intended to link to NIAID ChemDB, a data base of the NIH [1]. Can we establish consensus whether we want this link included in the drugbox? It is notable? Does it contain useful information? Do we risk table creep? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NIAID-AIDS parameter in the drugbox

  • Support – Gryphon Scientific manages the ChemDB for the US NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. The database is a purely informational database that focuses on drugs in preclinical testing and screening phases. We thought it would be of use to the scientific community (particularly, those in the field of drug discovery) to include NIAID-ChemDB references on US/UK/EU approved/pending drugs, as it would provide direct access to a database that surveys publicly available preclinical papers relating to HIV and opportunistic infection drug development.
We understand now that forking templates are frowned upon, so we are wondering if NIAID-ChemDB reference numbers could be added to drugbox. It would not be an overly-cluttered addition, as it would only appear on a select list of drugs, and would be a useful scientific resource like any of the others in Drugbox. Any other suggestions for ways to include links to NIAID ChemDb you might have, are appreciated. If an admin would like to contact us about this, please feel free to do so. Mort459 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the "List of resources searched" on the NLM's Drug Information Portal, the NIAD ChemDB shows along with HSDB, Medline/PubMed, TOXLINE, PubChem, and ChemIDplus. Each of these six is listed as a "Detailed Summary" resource there. That would seem to argue that we should give each of them parallel treatment in the chembox or drugbox. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Concerning these additional databases, see for example: ChemIDPlus: Linezolid:
  • PubChem – already included
  • ChemIDPlus – largely redundant to PubChem
  • Medline/PubMed – links to PubMed articles that discuss the drug, possibly relevant
  • TOXLINE – The TOXLINE database containes citations to the toxicological literature that is available under the TOXNET system. Possibly relevant.
  • HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank – this is not particularly relevant to drugs
In summary, I don't think any of these links (except PubChem of course which is already included) will add much. Boghog (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Mort, welcome to Wikipedia. Do you happen to know how many drugs are listed in this particular database? A parameter that's only useable on a couple dozen articles might not be so desirable an addition to the infobox, but it could be listed under WP:External links. On the other hand, if it's hundreds of drugs, then perhaps we should have it in the main drugbox rather than just the narrow one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
We will begin by updating approximately 3,000 FDA approved drugs and 160 drugs currently in clinical development, and represented in the NIAID database. Once that is complete, we will identify and update other wiki pages for compounds and compound combinations also represented in the NIAID database. In the future we anticipate creating links as new promising compounds are identified. Mort459 19:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mort459 (talk • contribs)
>3,000 sounds like a worthwhile number of links to include in the drugbox. I noticed it is possible to query the NIAID database by CAS number (see for example 30516-87-1). Since the CAS numbers are already included in the drug box, User:BogBot could parse the drugbox for the CAS number, interrogate NIAID database for the AIDS#, and then add the populated NIAID_ChemDB parameter to the drugbox. Alternatively, if you already have compiled a mapping of the AIDS# to some data that is included in Wikipedia drug articles (e.g. INN, CAS number, PubChemID, etc.), BogBot could work with your mapping instead. Boghog (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
We're currently talking about what we think the best way to do it is. We'll let you know out thoughts on the matter soon. Mort459 15:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The "AIDSNO:" was added to be consistent with the way some of the other links are displayed (see for example the PubChem, ChEBI, and ChEMBL in the drugbox in the Zidovudine article). Boghog (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The issue with "AIDSNO" is that the database used to be primarily for AIDS research, but has grown in scope over the past decade to include numerous infectious agents. For now, feel free to leave "AIDSNO:" in, but we may request it is removed after discussing it further. Mort459 15:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, you have convinced me. Since the scope of the database has expanded, "AIDSNO:" should be removed. Boghog (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose NIAID-AIDS parameter in the drugbox

(no entries)

Proposed closing of discussion as "support"

With all the opinions on one side, and none against, we seem to have a consensus here, and so, unless anyone disagrees strongly, I suggest we now regard this discussion as closed, and that community consensus supports this proposal. -- The Anome (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support guys. We talked about it, and ideally we'd like the drugbox reference to appear as "NIAID_AIDS" as opposed to "NIAID_ChemDB", only because of the official name of the database. That would be preferable, if no one is opposed to that, but ultimately it is at your discretion. Mort459 22:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the official name is "ChemDB HIV, Opportunistic Infection and Tuberculosis Therapeutics Database" or "NIAID ChemDB" for short. Or am I missing something? Boghog (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Another name on the page is "Division of AIDS Anti-HIV/OI/TB Therapeutics Database" which clearly implies that the scope of the database is wider than HIV therapeutics. Boghog (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
While the database includes compounds that target a large range of infectious agents, the main focus behind it is HIV and opportunistic infections. A lot of infections that are not strictly opportunistic infections (meaning that they can easily infect people without HIV or a compromised immune system as well; ex. Herpes Simplex viruses), happen to be more common/deadly in immunodeficient patients. As such, while the scope of the database has certainly broadened considerably in the preceding few years, it is still maintained with AIDS, as a whole, in mind (that is to say, not only HIV, but HIV along with any infections that are dangerous to patients immunocompromised by HIV). This is our thought process behind using "NIAID_AIDS" as opposed to "NIAID_HIV" or just "NIAID_ChemDB." The decision is ultimately yours, however, and we intend to update the appropriate pages with the correct NIAID numbers either way. Mort459 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mort459 (talk • contribs)
Let's just call it "NIAID ChemDB" for now, as per the actual, apparently official, usage on the web page cited above, and get the template field active and the data into the infoboxes. We can always change the name later, if we want -- it's a simple matter to rename the parameter and change all the references using a bot, if we decide as a community to do so. -- The Anome (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree: do something now to get this resource to readers, and worry about what the perfect label would be later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Template

Can we consider replacing the image in the Template:WikiProject Pharmacology with this image. --Extra 999 (Contact me) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the image. Not sure, though, whether it is recognisable as tablets at low resolution (see User:Anypodetos/Sandbox2). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thxx for the comment, I feel we can differaniate between pills at such resolution. Being bold, I have changed the image. Revert if you wish. --Extra 999 (Contact me) 08:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID nominated for renaming

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 22#Category:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to include model organism data

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers

So, there's a new project which may be of interest to some here. It arises out of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#UID_interface_to_Wikipedia, a proposal to make wikipedia articles available by their unique identifier - for instance by their DrugBank number. Umm. For reasons which should be all to obvious to anyone interested in computational access to information. And those two pages are all I have to show you, but I live in hope of input from you to take it all further. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tripeptide-37

I have nominated for deletion the new pharmacology-related article Tripeptide-37. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tripeptide-37. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GAR of Resveratrol

An article that you have been involved in editing, Resveratrol has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

Category:Natural opium alkaloids - help needed

Category:Natural opium alkaloids is being discussed for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 15#Category:Natural opium alkaloids. Help from experts would be much appreciated. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 29#Category:Natural opium alkaloids. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding drug mechanism data to drug boxes

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nitrazepam

Cross-post from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Assessment:

I would suggest the article Nitrazepam be re-written by someone without such a selective dislike of nitrazepam. It reads like an amateur anti-benzo rant, and its highly selective references to pubmed articles is likely to mislead. I would downrate it to 'C', not 'B', as its overall effect is to terrify people taking this drug, not inform them. --Posted by 120.148.2.96 (talk · contribs).

I case more about the content of the article than its rating. It does seem to be overly negative to me, but I lack expertise. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article cites the majority of the biased statements to a selection of outdated primary research as well as case reports. Should be pruned to recent review articles and teaching texts according to WP:MEDRS. Remove first everything cited to case reports and primary research, in particular medical claims based on in vitro results with rat cells, cancer cells etc. Virtually everything has once been observed, investigated and contradicted in primary research. Virtually everything has been once reported in a case report of some patient. 70.137.146.59 (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding drug mechanism data to drug boxes: take 2

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Contribution "Human Subject Research

It is my intention to do a revision to the "Human Subject Research" article. The article will more focus on the abusive aspect of these clinical trials however. Some of these abuses include the exploitation of poor patients in developing countries, conducting trials without patient consent and the lack of subject education about potential participation risk. I feel that in the medical community, we do not have enough dialogue about the protection of patient rights. I also feel that it is our duty to inform the general public not only about the positive aspects of medicine but the downsides as well. Many people who go into the healthcare field do so with some form of altruism. We need to return to that culture of care. I would appreciate feedback on the opinions you have about the outsourcing of many American pharmaceutical company trials to the developing world. B4change1 (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)B4change1

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I see that some other editors have responded to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and I think that they make some very important points about how Wikipedia does things. I hope that you take their advice seriously. Editing here is a bit of a learning process, but I highly recommend reading WP:NPOV and the other pages to which it links. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions about any of this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Create new article: Antimalarial drug resistance

Dear All

I propose the creation of an article specifically on Antimalarial drug resistance. To do this there would need to be a consensus in favour, so please let me know what your views are.

I am confident that this article is needed because antimalarial resistance is a large and important subject in its own right, constituting a global threat to efforts to control malaria. In an analogous way I note there is an article on Antibiotic resistance in addition to the one on Antibacterials, and to my knowledge antimalarial resistance is generally regarded as being as important as antibiotic resistance.

Currently the section on antimalarial resistance is limited to three shortish segments within what is already a large article on antimalarials (and to which more detail is likely to be added). In my view both Antimalarials and the material on Resistance would benefit from revision, but I (and presumably others) are disinclined to do this if an article feels cramped and poorly structured. I also observed that the current resistance section has only one reference (for the statement that resistance is common). I think we can do better.

The proposal would be to separate this into two articles, with one obviously linked to the other. I could create the new article with several sections and 10-20 references to get it going. Relevant content from Antimalarials could easily be transferred to the new article.

I am very grateful for any feedback on this. I will also post a similar section on Talk:Antimalarial_medication.

Regards

Scientist2 (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is enough literature (see PubMed search) to justify a new article split from Antimalarial_medication#Resistance. So I would support creation of a new article named antimalarial drug resistance. Boghog (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
It makes good sense to me, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

commonly prescribed drugs are not "fringe theories". Please confirm

Many medical studies have been published about Iberogast, which has been used for decades now since it was invented. Someone posted a link to it on the Wikiproject for Fringe Theories, and tagged it as a Fringe Theory. I have since removed that tag from the article. Will someone with experience in these sorts of articles have a look at it please? How many medical studies have to be done on something before it's considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? Dream Focus 14:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Drugbank accession numbers

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ivermectin Contraindications

Hi, I am trying to expand the ivermectin article to go into detail about contraindications of compound. If anybody with an expertise on this would like to weigh in, feel free to shoot me a message on my talk page, or, alternatively, the ivermectin talk page. Thanks! Cfowla (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Polyestradiol phosphate for DYK

Polyestradiol phosphate nominated for DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Polyestradiol phosphate. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

New steroid hormone navboxes

There is a (proto)discussion at Template talk:Estrogens and progestogens about (un)navigable navboxes. Some input would be welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer review of Folding@home

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've opened a peer-review on the Folding@home article. It's already achieved GA status, but I'd like to take it further, maybe even meet FA standards if I can. Comments and suggestions would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Jesse V. (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nisoxetine for DYK

Nisoxetine nominated for DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Nisoxetine. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Raymond P. Ahlquist for DYK

Raymond P. Ahlquist nominated for DYK: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Raymond_P._Ahlquist – Boghog (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Switch the image in the "Dopamine antagonist" article with another image

It is indicated that the substance, Clozapine, is shown in the article. This antipsychotic is a partial agonist of the D2 family receptors and it is not a antagonist of dopamine. I don't think it is possible for a schmuck like me to switch the photograph with something diffrent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00AgentBond93 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it really is an antagonist. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(snip)

The user (snip) is making quite a lot of changes to hormonal pharmacology articles, including the addition of non-MEDRS sources. A lot of the recent additions to finasteride give me worry, but I'd like some more eyes before making widespread changes to what this user has added. JFW | T@lk 11:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

And he's been rating them as top or high importance...--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Assessment#Importance scale, Top is for major drug groups, not individual drugs, and High is for first-in-group drugs and such. Since you know which articles he marked, could you point him to these rules? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Vivecon AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivecon. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Anti-inflammatory products

Template:Anti-inflammatory products has been nominated for merging with Template:NSAIDs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisted. Any comments? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please include SMILES string directly in the drugbox

Hello all. I'm new here so apologies if I step on any toes. I'm a cheminformatician, I'm involved with the development of the Open Babel software, and I'm very familiar with SMILES, InChIs and so forth.

For some time, it has driven me bananas that Wikipedia pages such as aspirin have a box for the SMILES string (which is really useful for cut+pasting structures from Wikipedia - in fact, it's the only way to do it) but which does not contain the SMILES string. Instead, it contains a link to the the eMolecules and PubChem pages for the compounds.

Now, don't get me wrong. I like eMolecules. I like PubChem. But this box should contain a SMILES string like "CC(=O)Oc1ccccc1C(=O)O" and not links to compound databases. Would you be willing to change this, or was this an intentional decision not to include the SMILES string? Baoilleach (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. Could be done with a show/hide button like the InChI. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Support. The current SMILES field is mislabeled and should be relabeled "search" or something similar. I question whether we should even have a SMILES/pubchem link since we already have a PubChem identifier link that is more far more specific. The eMolecules link provides very little unique information beyond a list of commercial suppliers and therefore could be considered spam. Hence I would support replacing both the SMILES/pubchem and SMILES/eMolecules external query links with the actual SMILES string. Boghog (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Support. Makes sense. A show/hide thing would reduce all the techno-babble that most readers may not care about. Jesse V. (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Drugbox/testcases -- what do you think of it? Bog, the sandbox also contains a PDB field and the parameter DrugBank_Alt. Do you want to implement these? If yes, we can request updating the drugbox from the sandbox. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Per this discussion, there was support for adding the PDB_ligand field so I would appreciate if that were added to the production version of the template. I will populate that field with a bot run when I find time. Per the discussion above, the DrugBank_Alt parameter is not needed and I have removed it from the sandbox. Boghog (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For my part, that would be great. Thanks everyone for the rapid (and positive) response. Baoilleach (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Open Babel looks really interesting. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think the changes are an improvement. I do not find that having the SMILES field link to eMolecules or PubChem to be very helpful. Displaying the actual SMILES string (or hiding it being a "show" button) is better. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Kaletra

This somehow doesn't make sense to me. Would somebody care to check? It this meant to be lipodystrophy? Any sources? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

add "Adverse Effects" to the drugbox plz

Please add "adverse effects" to the Template:Drugbox.--Taranet (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is feasible. Drugs can have dozens of side effects with different frequencies and severities. The drugbox would become unmanageably large. Where is the problem with side effects being in a section of the article text? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that adverse effects are something better described by text within the body of the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hundreds of adverse effects... Agree not possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

GAN of Azathioprine

I've nominated Azathioprine‎ to GAN. Any advises are welcomed.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. Well done! Jesse V. (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It still need some improvements though...--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting information on 3-MeO-PCP and 4-MeO-PCP pages

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/3-MeO-PCP The corresponding 4-methoxy derivative 4-MeO-PCP is also known, but is around 10 times less potent by weight than the 3-methoxy isomer, making it around the same potency as ketamine.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/4-MeO-PCP The positional isomer 3-MeO-PCP is also known. Being around 5 times more potent by weight than the 4-methoxy isomer it has around the same potency as PCP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfour (talk • contribs) 09:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Bath salts (drug)

Hello, would someone with a degree in pharmacology, please review the following article for accuracy: Bath salts (drug) any corrections with citations would be appreciated. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Input at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bath_salts_and_cannibalism would be appreciated. SmartSE (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Linezolid edits

Could somebody have a look at the recent edits to Linezolid? Not sure what this is about, but it doesn't look like a section in an FA... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Classical vs. reverse pharmacology

A previous version of the reverse pharmacology article used IMHO a confusing and non-standard definition of the topic. In attempt to remove the confusion, I propose to split the article into classical pharmacology and reverse pharmacology and have started a discussion here. Your input is welcome. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Are IUPAC names original research?

See Wikipedia talk:No original research#IUPAC names for chemicals, especially for drugs --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayurveda safety concerns

The lead of the article on Ayurveda contains a paragraph on safety concerns, which are a major issue in the discussion in independent reliable sources. This paragraph, naturally, is loathed by proponents of Ayurveda who either delete it or try to bury it elsewhere in the article. More eyes would be apprectiated. A discussion is in progress on the article talk page. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Off-label marketing

Just a heads-up for this WikiProject ... there seem to be quite a few single-purpose accounts active recently whose only purpose is to add details about legal settlements related to the off-label marketing of pharmaceuticals:

It appears to be a coordinated effort, so maybe there is an organization with a political agenda behind these editors, or maybe they are sock puppets of the same individual. Their edits should probably be checked in light of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, etc. At least some of the information is likely appropriate for articles about the companies involved, but is it appropriate content for articles on individual drugs? Deli nk (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at their edits, although I didn't bother to check everything from the IP. They do seem similar, but I don't see anything disruptive, POV, or UNDUE, nor any obvious tag teaming. A lot of the edits are perfectly constructive ones that provide internal links, etc. The overall focus of interest seems to be about legal matters pertaining to claims about pharmaceutical company misdeeds. Interestingly, I recently saw some similar edits by an editor whom I doubt is connected to these edits, someone I suspect has schizophrenia and is interested in pages related to that. Perhaps there could be some promotion coming from a law firm or advocacy group, but as I said, I'm not really seeing anything disruptive. If things take a turn for the worse, you should probably take it to WP:SPI or WP:ANI, but I don't see any need for that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Phentermine/topiramate

Qsymia appears to have been FDA-approved the day before yesterday. Anyone up to adding some Rsources? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming

This is a bit out of my wheelhouse, but I was wondering what the reason was for having an article (for example) at alpha-Methylfentanyl rather than α-Methylfentanyl. It may have been covered in the project's Manual of Style and I just didn't understand it, so my apologies if that's the case. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We also have titles such as Alphamethylacetylfentanyl (without a hyphen), so there seems to be some inconsistency. An advantage of alpha vs. α is that the latter might irritate readers who are not familiar with the Greek alphabet. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
For some time, only administrators have had the ability to create articles with titles containing a mix of Greek and Latin characters. (I'm not sure if this is still true today or not.) So most chemistry/pharmacology articles that have a Greek prefix are located at titles that begin like "alpha-" rather than "α-". However, since most of these articles use the Greek characters in the text, I think concerns about readers being irritated by the Greek characters in the title is moot. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the deletion of {{Foreign character}} at the end of last year, I'm inclined to agree that possible reader irritation isn't really a good reason to leave things as is. So where such articles do use the greek letters throughout the text (and so are presumably sourced as having their name most commonly spelled using e.g. 'α' instead of 'alpha'), might it be reasonable to move them to the corresponding names? As I said above I'm unfamiliar with this area, but is the drug name-scheme standardized enough that all such articles should/could be likewise moved (or alternatively, ditch 'α' entirely and use 'alpha' in the text), or does it just vary from drug to drug? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
From my experience, "α-" is more commonly used than "alpha-" in chemical nomenclature and I would support the idea of moving these articles per WP:COMMONNAME, though there may be exceptions. I suspect that for chemicals/pharmaceuticals that would have some familiarity to a non-scientist/non-medical-professional the spelled out version might be the more common variant (beta-carotene, for example). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, COMMONNAME certainly points to "α-". I support moving the articles, but I'd mention the Latin names in the leads or the drug/chemboxes. (And mind you, my signature is in Greek letters...) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Even β-Carotene uses the greek letter in most places throughout the text itself. 'Beta' is currently spelled out in the chembox as part of the IUPAC name and in other names, but only rarely within the prose. I think the article name ought to match what's used in the article itself and vice versa, so it seems to me that particular article needs to have its text altered rather than being moved.
As far as the less common chemicals which should be moved go, then for non-technical readers I think it would be easiest to change the leads so that it says (for example) "β-Carotene (or beta-Carotene)". That way there'd be no bother with chembox validation and the like. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ciclosporin: which fungus?

I just reverted an IP edit that changed Tolypocladium inflatum to Beauveria nivea as the name of the fungus in which ciclosporin was discovered, as the former name appears in the title of the source, and is also mentioned in my favourite pharmacology book — but then I found the latter name mentioned in ref 5 of the article, in a somewhat confusing way (However, the name, "Beauveria nivea", also appears in several other articles...) Could someone knowledgeable have a look at this ref? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Beauveria, "B. nivea is Tolypocladium inflatum".
As far as I know, they ARE synonyms -- and I found it here that Beauveria nivea is formerly known as Tolypocladium inflatum.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with Folding@home

For months now, I've been working on improving the quality of the Folding@home article. However, I'm having an increasing amount of difficulty finding things to fix or things to add, and I'm running out of what little technical knowledge I have. I hope there are some experts here who can offer an insight on what the article needs next and how to go about taking care of it. Any ideas? • Jesse V.(talk) 05:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, can someone please review it and see if it qualifies for A-class? If it's not A-class, please advise on how I can get it up there. • Jesse V.(talk) 14:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines

The project page states

  • Work on one of the top 200 prescribed medicines [2]. (US stats)

The reference is outdated (2009), US-centered, and does not necessarily reflect clinical relevance. I would suggest to (first) concentrate on the WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines, which is updated every two years. Alfie↑↓© 20:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone noticed Category:Top 200 US Drugs of 2011? Interesting, but still US centred – and will we add a Category:Top 200 US Drugs of 20xx every year?? Thoughts? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the year bothered me too. I think it would be better to rename it Category:Top 200 US Drugs and then update it every year. From a medical and social point of view, a US centred category is problematic, but from an economic point of view, as half the pharmaceutical profits in the world are from the US (an amazing but true statistic), I think it can be justified. Boghog (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Last week I saw the suggestion that the OP asked a question about and thought I could help the project by drawing the data into a table and to make the project subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Top 200 US Prescriptions 2011. I then corrected mistakes I had made with the table, added about 20 article redirects so the listed phamacy names went to the correct articles, and also did the same for some manufacturer names. I then used the table to add the categories using AWB in semi-automatic mode. (The whole thing took over 8 hours.)
I had thought about NOT using the year name, but I also noticed that List of largest selling pharmaceutical products has not been updated since 2006, and I did not want this category to have the same issue of not being updated regularly. I'm not apposed to changing the category to Category:Top 200 US Drugs. I took at look at WP:REDIRECT#CATEGORY and saw that a "hard redirect" isn't technically feasible, however putting the "soft redirect" template on the page would allow a bot to do all the work. I suggest retaining the project subpage as is, then renaming next year's data as Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Top 200 US Prescriptions 2012 and then adding or removing the cat tags from articles as needed. I don't mind volunteering to with a similar effort for List of World Health Organization Essential Medicines and Category:World Health Organization essential medicines.
(PS: the category had been nom'd for deletion by an IP user here. Since the proper substitution template wasn't used, the page did not end being listed properly. I removed the deletion notice and added a notice about the proposed renaming, and also put a notice on the 67.166.158.16's talk page of what I had done.) - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate your efforts very much! In my OP I meant that the workplan of the project is US-centric. Sorry if I did't express myself clearly (English is not my native language). It would be great if you could work on WHO's list as well. I think we should concentrate on drugs from a medical point of view first; economics (and yes, fashion: prescriptions of methylphenidate in the US vs. the rest of the world) are secondary. Alfie↑↓© 11:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Category:Top 200 US Drugs of 2011 is undergoing deletion review. See announcement below. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that there should be the following list of partially overlapping categories:

Category:World Health Organization essential medicines (justification: medical and world-wide scope)
Category:Top 200 World Drugs by Units (justification: medical and world-wide scope)
Category:Top 200 World Drugs by Sales (justification: economic and world-wide scope)
Category:Top 200 US Drugs by Sales (justification: economic)
sources:
"Top 200 Prescribed Drugs by Sales in 2010". Drugs.com. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Njarðarson Group. "Top Pharmaceuticals Poster". Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at The University of Arizona. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) "Top 200 Drugs A Five-Year Compilation updated with 2010 data". Advanstar Communications. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Also I propose that the lists should not contain the year (because of the unnecessary maintenance and they become magnets for CfD proposals). Instead, they year should be documented on the category pages and the categories should be updated as new data become available. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC) I have no further interest in this issue. Boghog (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I can agree with some of the points that certain users have put at the CfD, particularly BrownHairedGirl. I expect that this category will be deleted. I'm for having the category being moved to the talk pages. Perhaps somebody there with the rights to a bot and the skills to use one could does this for us? What could be done is adding a See Also: List of top 200 US drugs by sales for every article. What I think would be the most effective use of the top 200 list would be to incorporate it into the drugbox, with perhaps Europe and World being the other possible rankings types. Category:World Health Organization essential medicines would be an appropiate category. I've been working on setting up a bot (StillwaterBot) account with AWB to help with these repetitive edits, however it would still be time consuming semi-automated work. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Folding@home nominated for FA class

I just wanted to let everyone know that I've nominated Folding@home as a Featured Article candidate. Comments or editing assistance would be most welcome. • Jesse V.(talk) 02:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Creation of an article on Empagliflozin

Dear All

I would like to propose the creation of an article specifically on Empagliflozin. To do this though I would think that there would need to be a consensus in favour, so please let me know what your views are on either myself creating the article or perhaps someone from this group creating the article.

Empagliflozin is a SGLT2 inhibitor which is currently being investigated in clinical trials for the oral treatment of type 2 diabetes. Empagliflozin is already mentioned on the SGLT2 inhibitor Wikipedia entry but lacks the individual entry, representing a need for the article. The suggested text below contains the most basic information about Empagliflozin to get the article started and five published, reliable sources. Of course, this is just a suggestion so any comments are appreciated.

Looking forward to the feedback,--Thseck (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


Empagliflozin

Empagliflozin is a SGLT2 inhibitor which is currently being investigated in clinical trials for the oral treatment of type 2 diabetes, currently being developed by the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company Diabetes Alliance. 1,2 It is an inhibitor of the sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2), which is found almost exclusively in the proximal tubules of nephrons in the kidney. SGLT-2 accounts for about 90% of glucose reabsorption into the blood. Blocking SGLT-2 causes blood glucose to be eliminated through the urine.3,4

Mode of Action SGLT-2 inhibitors such as empagliflozin reduce blood glucose by blocking glucose reabsorption in the kidney and thereby excreting glucose via the urine.5

Clinical Trial Program (as of August 2012) The empagliflozin Phase III clinical trial program will include about 14,500 patients. The program consists of twelve ongoing multi-national Phase III clinical trials, including a large cardiovascular outcomes trial. 2

1. Grempler, R. et al. - Empagliflozin, a novel selective sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor: characterization and comparison with other SGLT-2 inhibitors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism. 2012.14: 83–90

2. ClinicalTrials.gov. Phase III trials of empagliflozin/BI10773. Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Last accessed: August 2012.

3. Nair, S. and Wilding, J. P. H. Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors as a New Treatment for Diabetes Mellitus. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010. 95(1):34–42.

4. Bays H. From victim to ally: the kidney as an emerging target for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009; 25(3):671-81.

5. Abdul-Ghani MA, DeFronzo RA. Inhibition of renal glucose reabsorption: A novel strategy for achieving glucose control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Endocrine Practice. 2008;14:782-90


Empagliflozin

Systematic (IUPAC) name

(2S,3R,4R,5S,6R)-2-[4-chloro-3-[[4-[(3S)-tetrahydrofuran-3-yl]oxyphenyl]methyl]phenyl]-6-(hydroxymethyl)tetrahydropyran-3,4,5-triol

Clinical data

Pregnancy cat.?

Legal status ?

Identifiers

CAS number 864070-44-0

ATC code not available

ChemSpider Not available

UNII HDC1R2M35U

Synonyms BI 10773

Chemical data

Formula C23H27ClO7

Mol. mass 450,91 g/mol


Empagliflozin AfD

The above article which I just created has been nominated for deletion. I would appreciate some additional opinions at Talk:Empagliflozin. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Talk:Levomefolic acid#Requested move

Levomefolic acid → L-methylfolate – I think an exception to naming guidelines to prefer the INN name (Levomefolic acid) needs to be granted because all modern research that I've seen, including the naming of the drugs made from Metafolin, are using the name l-methylfolate. Google Scholar ghits since 2008 for "l-methylfolate" are 227, ghits for "Levomefolic acid" are just 4. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This request has been up for over two weeks and has few comments. I have requested RFC, and also posting the request here. Please post your comments on the article's talk page, not here. Thank you. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New list: Wp:WikiProject Pharmacology/List of top 25 prescribed drugs in the US

I've created a new list from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. This one shows the top 25 prescriptions filled by generic name from 2007-2011. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dapoxetine

I am a student at Georgia Tech, taking Intro Neuroscience with Dr. Potter. I selected this topic as one of the assignments during this class. I would like to adopt the Dapoxetine page as a part of this class. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks.Thoa Shook (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome to do so! Feel free to ask if you need any help. Happy editing! ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Top 200 US Drugs of 2011 is undergoing deletion review

This newly created category has been under deletion review since October 1 and is likely going to be deleted. I put in a request to have the review remain open another 14 days to allow the members of this project to have a chance to add their opinions. I personally created this category and it has been discussed and has been approved in above topic "WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines" (with a renaming to Category:Top 200 US Drugs). Please click here to go to the review discussion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A compromise has been reached. The category is still going to be used, however placed on the Talk page for maintenance issues. There's further proposals to use the list in other means. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#WHO_Model_Lists_of_Essential_Medicines above thread. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Mary Joy/Annihilation

Hi. I was wondering whether Mary Joy might be a legitimate addition somewhere in {{Drug use}} (or within another template). I'm pretty clueless about this and haven't found a great deal in reliable sources to enlighten me. Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I added it. (Yes, that's a pretty complicated template.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I should have thought to include it in 'Other' like that! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dioxandrolon

I have nominated the new article dioxandrolon for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dioxandrolon. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. ChemNerd (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Crofelemer for DYK

See Template:Did you know nominations/Crofelemer. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment

Hi, this article (the result of a class assignment) could use some attention of an expert. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment has been nominated for deletion.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting wp:PHARMMOS to guideline status

This project's MOS has been marked as "proposed" for quite a while, without any indication of why. Please raise any issues at wikipedia talk:PHARMMOS so that they can be addressed. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Rule of three (medicine)

FYI, Rule of three (medicine) has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Rule of three (medicine) -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_6&oldid=1151000533"