Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

    Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

    We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

    List of archives

    Lichen myxedematosus/Papular mucinosis[edit]

    There seems to be an issue with the classification of Lichen myxedematosus/Papular mucinosis. The terms papular mucinosis, lichen myxedematosus, and scleromyxedema have all kind of been jumbled and I'm not sure how to classify them. Here's what I've found:

    ICD-11 lumps the terms Lichen myxoedematosus, Papular mucinosis, and Scleromyxoedema all under the term Lichen myxoedematosus. [1]

    MeshID lumps the terms Lichen myxoedematosus, Papular mucinosis, and Scleromyxoedema under the term Scleromyxedema.[2]

    Orphanet lists Lichen myxedematosus as a group of disorders,[3] with the terms Atypical lichen myxedematosus,[4], Localized lichen myxedematosus (Orphanet uses Papular mucinosis as a synonym for Localized lichen myxedematosus),[5] and Scleromyxedema.[6]

    Disease database lumps them all together as well.

    However it seems that they are different disorders with different sources using different names. For example UpToDate uses Papular mucinosis for a synonym of Lichen myxedematosus.[7] This article[8] goes over the classifications and seems to imply that Papular mucinosis is a synonym fot Localized lichen myxedematosus, and that Scleromyxedema is a seperate disorder.

    From what I understand it seems like generalized lichen myxedematosus is a synonym for scleromyxedema, Papular mucinosis is a synonym for Localized lichen myxedematosus and lichen myxedematosus is the the group of disorders.

    Before I change any redirects I'd like to hear others input on the topic as it's quite confusing to me. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [9]..I'd go with this(just my opinion)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The disease database just lumps all of the terms together which doesn't make sense since they seem to be different disorders. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Mary Fletcher#Requested move 12 June 2024[edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mary Fletcher#Requested move 12 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Idiopathic ulnar neuropathy at the elbow#Requested move 13 June 2024[edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Idiopathic ulnar neuropathy at the elbow#Requested move 13 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 13:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Infoboxes changed?[edit]

    Have the infoboxes for medical conditions been changed or is my computer just not working right? Is this a site wide thing or just that specefic template? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath, please tell me more. {{infobox medical condition}} hasn't been edited directly for a few months. Did you change your font size or zoom level? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it seems to be a site wide issue but it has been fixed for me! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many reports of problems at VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to deal with the overwhelming amount of pages with unsourced statements.[edit]

    I think the majority of the active editors here know that WikiProject Medicine has an issue with unsourced statements in articles. I'm not blaming anyone; a lot of the citation issues come from editors not familiar with Wikipedia. Regardless of how this issue started, I think we need to have a conversation about how to fix it.

    I've noticed that there are typically two different types of pages that have unspurced statements: pages that are almost completely unsourced (for example, 1q21.1 duplication syndrome), and pages that have one or two unsourced statements but are otherwise well cited (for example, 3-M syndrome).

    For the first type of page, I believe it's best to do a quick literary search to see if you can find where the information came from; however, I've found that this is usually quite low-yeild, especially when the whole page is unsourced. I believe most of these pages need to be rewritten. Obviously, this is a time-consuming task, but something needs to be done about the issue.

    For the second type of page, usually I can find where they got the statment by searching keywords from the unsourced statement in Google. When I can't find the original source, I think it's fair to delete the unsourced passage, assuming it is not somehow vital information (however, if it were vital information, there should be a source somewhere with that information).

    I'm looking for other ideas, suggestions, advice, and knowledge on this topic. I'm still a fairly new editor, and I haven't worked much on correcting this problem, so if anyone with more knowledge could share their opinions, that would be great. I just want to emphasize that this is not me trying to bash any editors; I just think it's time we have a conversation about this very prevelant issue. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you thinking about the articles tagged as having no refs, such as these?
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm refering to any page with the citation needed template. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are over 12,000 WPMED-tagged articles with a {{fact}} tag somewhere in it. (There are more than half a million tagged articles overall.) That's a bit much to handle all at once.
    This link to Citation Hunt will give you just the ones that are in Category:Top-importance medicine articles. If you try that out and like it, we can set up another for Category:High-importance medicine articles, or perhaps using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great idea thank you! So far I've just been going through the list alphabetically. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge proposal for Somatization disorder and Somatic symptom disorder.[edit]

    I've started a discussion regarding the merging of Somatization disorder and Somatic symptom disorder here and I would really appreciate if others could give their input on the topic. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Village Pump discussion[edit]

    There's a village pump discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Resources on severe mental illness pages that may be of interest to this project. I've given my thoughts there, but the participants of this project probably have the best judgement on this topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Expert attention needed[edit]

    I've been working with Pete Nelson from UKY (and by "working with" I mean mostly doing some minor cleanup on his work) on User:WikiDan61/LATE which is intended to replace the current contents of Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy. As can be seen from the existing article, Nelson is clearly a recognized expert in the field for this condition. I got involved when he made a major wholesale edit to the article, basically blowing away the existing citations. Once I was able to mentor him through some Wikipedia basics, and help him with some article organization ideas, he has cleaned up the article (now living in my user space as a drafting location). I'd like to have someone from this project assess the present state of the draft and see if it is ready to be copied into place of the existing article. I might also need some Wikipedia expertise on how to do the merge to preserve the proper authorship attributions (his and my edits in my userspace). Thanks!! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Dan61. Just to clarify, I wrote the prior version as well, this is just an update to flesh it out a little bit and conform more closely to (what I understood to be) Wikipedia formating.
    Best regards,
    Pete Nelson Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a cross-page diff of the sandbox vs current article, if anyone wants to take a look at the changes. It quadruples the amount of readable prose and doubles the number of sources cited. I haven't looked at the quality of the sources, but everything else looks good to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New form of B12 deficiency discovered[edit]

    A new form of B12 deficiency affects the nervous system only, with B12 levels remaining normal in the blood: Transcobalamin receptor antibodies in autoimmune vitamin B12 central deficiency - Pluvinage et al., 26 Jun 2024. I wonder if it merits a mention in B12 deficiency or even a standalone article. The condition reminds me of cerebral folate deficiency. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps "mooted" rather than "discovered". Any WP:MEDRS ? Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we have one confirmed case in humans reported by a primary source? Seems interesting and something to take note of, but all the same too soon for the encyclopedia to be rewritten. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we could justify a single sentence in Vitamin B12 deficiency#History ("A single case study claimed..."). I do not think that a standalone article is warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this very interesting, but am inclined to agree with WhatamIdoing, but I don't think we need to point out it was a "single" study, rather it makes sense to mention "A case study describes ...". Anyone able to understand what a case study is, should also inherently understand its limitations. CFCF (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography#Requested move 14 May 2024[edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography#Requested move 14 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Covid-Organics; contextualizing trial in predatory journal[edit]

    Presently, Covid-Organics mentions a Phase III trial, published in a journal from Fortune Journals (who's apparently predatory per Beall's List), as if it was in a typical, credible journal, without further comment/context. I'm hoping someone with more experience and energy than me could e.g. add a sentence or two properly contextualizing the quality of the journal/trial. Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you ought to feel free to just remove it. CFCF (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CT / MRI viewer[edit]

    We at Wiki Med Foundation have been working to develop a CT / MRI scan viewer. Currently it is functionally on EN WP as a trial and works fairly well on mobile and desktop. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    this is a very good idea, I believe this needs to be supported--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks interesting. I think the UI needs a little more information. So first, for anyone who wants to take a look (do it!), just go to User:Doc James/CT scan viewer, and where it says "(requires turning on the gadget under preferences or this)" in the section heading, click on the word 'this'. (If you do that, you can test it without having to do anything to your prefs.) In the picture, a ► play button will appear. Click that.
    Then wait several seconds for all the images to load. In this instance, there are 248 images. It'll give you a vertical bar with a slider dot at the bottom. After everything's loaded, you can slide that up and down to step through the images. If you want to view it image-by-image, then look at the text (sideways) that says "← (177/248) →" and click on the individual arrows.
    I think this would be particularly interesting on CT scan, because it gives people an idea of what the results are. For that page in particular, I'd love to see a head-to-toe scan with a few labels (spine, lungs, liver?), so they can stay oriented.
    Also, I wonder whether this could be integrated into MediaViewer. MarkTraceur, do you know a multi-part image has ever been considered there? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a member of Wikipedia Radiology task force, I always wanted this kind of gadget in Radiology related articles. Thankyou @Doc James for fulfilling this wish. I see this as a good starting point to move forward to its implementation. I agree with WhatamIdoing's comment about UI, and would also request this support to be extended to MR Scans as well. Thankyou. signed, 511KeV (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Corinne Peek-Asa draft at Articles for Creation[edit]

    On behalf of the University of California, San Diego, I have submitted a draft article about American epidemiologist Corinne Peek-Asa (red-linked in this list and at WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships) as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Sharing a notice here in case any WikiProject Medicine participants are interested in taking a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested input at Talk:List of common misconceptions over lede[edit]

    Looking for uninvolved editors opinions on the discussion at List of common misconceptions on whether the lede meets sourcing requirements. Conversation seems to have stalled. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    LATE (Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy) web page[edit]

    Hi, my name is Pete Nelson (wiki username is Pete Nelson from UKY),

    I wrote a web page about LATE: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Limbic-predominant_age-related_TDP-43_encephalopathy It generally gets around 300 hits per month; not a ton but it's a disease with high public health impact.

    I had written the web page in a somewhat essay-like format and I noted that it had a poor formatting score according to Wikipedia editors. Thus, I rewrote the web page and, under the advice and help by WikiDan61, we produced a Wikipedia page (in his sandbox) that conforms better the format and has a bit more info. Apparently this replacement (of my web page, by my web page) has struck the senior medical editors as problematic, and therefore WikiDan61 suggested I contact you on this page.

    Can you help please?

    Thanks, Pete aka Pete Nelson from UKY Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, @Pete Nelson from UKY. It looks like @WikiDan61 removed it. This is not necessarily a permanent thing, and it's reversible. He summarized his objection as "That comprehensive rewrite discarded 36 sources, and retained only one. See WP:NOR."
    As a general rule, Wikipedia articles should be written in ordinary paragraphs rather than bullet points, and in an ideal world, there would be more inline citations (which I know you were working on). May I suggest that you look at User:WikiDan61/LATE again, pick just one little section (maybe User:WikiDan61/LATE#Society and culture?) and move just that one section over to Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy? (It doesn't have any normal sections at the moment, so just edit the page and paste the new section above the ==References== section.) Then see if there are objections to that specific edit. It's more challenging to discuss whole-page changes, so I think that focusing on a single section would be more practical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks WhatamIdoing!
    I guess there was a miscommunication since the number of references went from 36 to 65 or so? I don't think I discarded any, or only a few to lessen the number of references I was an author of because the Editors were focused on this problem.
    Is WikiDan61 reading this? I hope he can, so he could perhaps redo that summary that was quite inaccurate. (WikiDan61 was very helpful in the rewrite and I am grateful for that.)
    Thanks again,
    Pete Nelson from UKY Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Looking at the link you sent from WikiDan61, it confirms that there were 68 references cited and bibliographied) User:WikiDan61/LATE
    I'm a bit confused because there seemingly is a Wikipedia-wished-for headings and organization format, and the updated wiki page now conforms to it? Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1233751740"