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

Black box warnings project[edit]

break a[edit]

I was disturbed to find that some drugs with FDA-mandated Black box warnings have articles that are missing any mention of the box or the risk. It's disturbing to me that someone would create a page and mention minor side effects but leave this out. Looking to drum up interest in a project to programmatically identify and (manually?) remedy all such articles. Anyone? RudolfoMD (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know of an official list of drugs with black box warnings? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not reliable, but a starting place: https://pharmafactz.com/list-of-black-box-warnings/
Better ? https://hospitals.vchca.org/images/pharmacy_hca/20200623_BBW.pdf
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question. Neither of those sources lists Brincidofovir.
I have made a complete list: https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/spl-summaries/criteria/343802 (query: https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/ui/#/search/spl-summaries/criteria/343802) using The FDALabel Database. It allows Presence of... specific sections of the prescribing information (e.g., BOXED WARNING) per the main page documentation. It produces a result of >16k labels with boxed warnings. https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/fdalabel/services/spl/summaries/csv/criteria/343802.
Broad strokes: It seems like it would be appropriate to put the relevant info into wikidata and have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_drug#Input_from_Wikidata cause it to be displayed.
RudolfoMD (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That could be a useful approach. User:Andrawaag, is this Wikidata idea something that User:ProteinBoxBot could handle? One would ideally want both to have the information added to Wikidata and also to have the bot watch for human-involved errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback and relaying the idea to @Andrawaag. If we proceed, this way, how is sourcing handled? In each article or in Wikidata?
(Since opening this discussion, someone reverted my fixing the omission of the fact that a drug had a black box warning. That omission is what prompted me opening it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brincidofovir&diff=prev&oldid=1168856210 ) RudolfoMD (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RudolfoMD, I think that a "both/and" approach to sourcing is better than "either/or". Sources are pretty easy to add in Wikidata. It doesn't look easier, at first glance, but all you do is:
  1. Look for "Add references" to the side of whichever detail you're adding a source for, and click on it;
  2. In the confusing little box, start typing in the kind of source you're adding (e.g.,: "URL", "PubMed", "PubChem", or "ISBN");
  3. Choose the correct item from the list (e.g., "PubChem CID" if you have the official compound id number);
  4. Paste the id number/URL into the next field.
  5. Click "publish" for the item (about 2–3 cm above where you originally clicked on "Add references").
It handles everything else about the citations automatically.
Here, of course, you need to supply a source. I suspect the reason @Sundayclose reverted you is because you added a source in ==External links== instead of in <ref>...</ref>tags. (For the actual purpose of Wikipedia:External links, your link to PubChem should replace the dead URL that's there now, rather than being added after it, and we don't usually put those in citation templates. I'll go fix that now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NB: I'm proposing a project to programmatically identify and remedy all such articles. Not go through 16,000 drugs, and for those with articles, perform manual steps on each of a significant fraction of them! Maybe this (WT:MED) isn't a good place to connect with folks with the relevant skills.
Idea! I'm thinking a smaller / more feasible project would be to add those of the 16,000 drugs with articles to a category - i.e. Drugs with Black Box warnings, and with the https://nctr-crs.fda.gov/ citations on the category page. User:Andrawaag - any thoughts on this (or the original) idea?
PS This is a good place to establish if it's an uncontroversial bot task; if it is, we could make a WP:BOTREQ - hopefully a good place to connect with folks with the relevant skills. RudolfoMD (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RudolfoMD, your ping above to Andrawaag will not be received by them because you added it on to an already existing post. See Help:Notifications; for a ping to work, it has to be a new post with a fresh signature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the category idea: How would you handle former black boxes? Remove the category, or keep it (because it used to have one)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might also be possible to add that information (and a source) as a comment on the US legal status to {{drugbox}}. See Template:Infobox drug/legal status for more information on that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are most readers in tune to categories? I think the infobox idea might be better ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Page views say that more readers go to cat pages than editors. (I assumed that they were really just being used by editors, and I asked someone at work to pull the numbers for me. I was wrong. The skew isn't as huge as, say, page views for a popular page like Taylor Swift, but some readers do use them.)
It would be possible to do both/and. In fact, the infobox could trigger the category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This use of "infobox could trigger the category" sounds like a good concept, but it's against WP:TEMPLATECAT. I've been shot down for taking that approach in other topic-areas, and there definitely does not appear to be consensus to overturn or weaken that recommendation. DMacks (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just noticed: that doesn't seem to have stopped its use twice in the infobox template, e.g. {{main other|[[Category:ECHA InfoCard ID from Wikidata|*]]}}. It seems consensus has changed. Wait... They're hidden maintenance categories... RudolfoMD (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, that's a key distinction in the guideline. DMacks (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break b[edit]

Do other competent authorities have similar schemes - if so should they be considered for addition to articles as well?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EMA has the inverted triangle, drugs under additional monitoring but not really comparable. Was trying to see if these could be found through DrugCentral, but it doesn't look like it's possible, only get the U.S. labels it seems. fiveby(zero) 17:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PMDA has Yellow Letter / Blue Letter, eg. Diclofenac etalhyaluronate "Shock and anaphylaxis by Joyclu 30mg intra-articular injection" fiveby(zero) 18:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EMA = UK European Medicines Agency; PMDA = Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency.
It's beginning to sound like this is too much for an infobox, and maybe it could be a template similar to {{Medical condition classification and resources}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't let me complicate something that started out as a more straightforward task, just looking for other resources. fiveby(zero) 19:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're already listing regulatory approval in several countries; we could change the infobox item from something like:
to:
(Ideally with links under the symbols and citations to support the claim.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I anticipate that
  • US: ℞-only ◼︎
  • EU: Rx-only ▼ would be incomprehensible to a large fraction of users, and
    • US: ℞-only ◼︎⚠️
    • EU: Rx-only ▼⚠️ would be a bit better, but not good... And I agree with fiveby. Success seems more likely if we aim to achieve a small task at scale. At least until someone with bot skills shows interest. (If that's someone already reading or commenting, please speak up; I've not seen anyone say they have any.)
RudolfoMD (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've got some domain knowledge and could help out with code. I'm a little surprised that there is not an existing bot verifying {{drugbox}}. Looks like CheMoBot by Beetstra and BogBot by Boghog are doing some work, but do not verify against any external compendia. If we go to the trouble of adding a field to the infobox, should probably later add a task to verify the existing fields in passing.
There's also a little ethical issue here. Once we start supplying drug warnings i think it kind of imposes a duty to be accurate and up-to-date.
Should get some feedback from those bot authors already touching the infobox before starting. fiveby(zero) 01:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, after looking at some of the drug articles and thinking about this more, i don't think i want to touch any of those articles, sorry. fiveby(zero) 03:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. It would be helpful if you could explain what discoveries led to your hesitance - what hurdle or hurdles your looking at some articles made apparent, especially any surprising ones. (I accept you are free to choose, of course.)
Would it be right to say that the ethical issue you raise is very close to one that exists for those other bots editing drug articles - in that once a botmaster starts supplying drug info arguably it might impose a duty to keep it up-to-date? Or are they thus far all adding info that can't become out-of-date? I doubt that the FDA often removes black box warnings. RudolfoMD (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as hurdles go i think the presentation to the reader would require the most consideration and a few other issues would probably arise. Labels are for a drug product which the consumer has in hand whereas the WP articles are for the drug and in some cases drug combinations. Just technical issues which can be overcome and i think what you suggest would be a doable and fairly simple improvement.
But looking at the drug articles they are listing contraindications, adverse effects, and interactions. They are purporting to provide comprehensive consumer safety information. I'm sure editors are covered by the medical disclaimer, but that is buried in the footer and two clicks away—in my opinion not good enough for the reader. You were disturbed to see the black box warnings missing from articles, i'm leery of attempting to provide drug safety information at all. I would want to have a professional i could trust looking over my shoulder to ensure i was doing things correctly and that it was an actual benefit to the reader vs. simply sending them elsewhere to obtain that information.
I don't see that the other bots are touching anything that would be a safety issue, tho i could be wrong. fiveby(zero) 15:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to see you back at work, RudolfoMD; if you all come to some consensus on this, and can develop a clear algorithm, you're more likely to get attention via a post to Wikipedia:Bot requests. But that shouldn't be initiated without a clear algorithm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A clear algorithm" in this case probably means a list of drug articles with the source that supports the claim. Once that information is in hand, it might even be possible to use WP:AWB to do it, especially if the goal is just to put an item in the infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, a list of drugs (and their UNII FDA UNII identifier issued by the FDA / Unique Ingredient Identifier) with the source that supports the claim is in my 05:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) comment, above. So what is lacking?
Wikidata
I looked at adding the info to Wikidata. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=Q879952&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns120=1 indicates that no entries use the property Boxed warning (Q879952) yet, right? So what's a good / is there one correct way to add to WikiData info on which drugs have boxed warnings (i.e. FDA-mandated Black Box Warnings)? I just can't grok what statements I should add.  I don't see that binary values are supported (0/1 or No/Yes...). Can someone add the info for one drug, like maybe add Q879952 in a way they think is correct, for, say, acetaminophen? RudolfoMD (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhatamIdoing? Anyone? I guess I can resort to BOLD. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q57055&diff=prev&oldid=1981617113. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That edit has been reverted.
Of note Q879952 isn't a property. WikiData's property IDs begin with a P rather than a Q. What you're probably going to have to do is request a new property. I've only ever requested one, and it was a long while ago, but try to put the request in a topic area that's as specific as possible. It's been that long, and processes change, that the only further advise I can give is to look at other property proposals and the help:properties pages. Strike as to not confuse/contradict, see Wostr's response below Little pob (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break c[edit]

I've reverted this edit and discussion between me and RudolfoMD is here. As I suggested there, the first step in this situation should be to initiate a discussion in d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine. I also suggested a possible solution: adding boxed warning (Q879952) as a value of a qualifier to legal status (medicine) (P3493) statements like this:

legal status (medicine) (P3493)
Normal rank FDA-approved (Q111972129) edit
has characteristic (P1552) boxed warning (Q879952)
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
+ add value

However, due to Wikidata being much more detailed than Wikipedia (information that fits into one Wikipedia article is often split into multiple Wikidata items), it is not clear to me right now, whether this type of information should be included in the item describing the active substance or in items describing specific pharmaceutical products like Tylenol (Q3245302). So, as I said, this should be discussed in Wikiproject Medicine in Wikidata first. Sadly, such discussion has not been initiated yet. And as a side note: there is no such thing in Wikidata as be bold policy, given the nature of Wikidata, this type of import of data should be carefully considered and discussed in advance. Wostr (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wostr, I like your idea of listing these as qualifiers. Am I correct in thinking that approach would also let us add some details, like noting the dates it was active during?
BTW, after the discussion this week at d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#diseases_and_rare_diseases, I'm not sure that that page really has the activity necessary to be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, all: I got constructive feedback here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Basic_question._How_do_I_mark_that_a_drug_has_a_en:boxed_warning? and edited accordingly before seeing the last 3 comments here. (This new suggestion from Wostr (which they say they had suggested but is not visible to me in their conversation with me - perhaps the edit failed to save or get served properly) seems reasonable. I don't know why Wostr was ignoring my feedback on the idea of asking on Wikiproject Medicine in Wikidata - which included the point WhatamIdoing made - that the page isn't active enough doesn't have the activity necessary to be useful). IMO the Wikidata:Project_chat# is serving adequately. Wostr, do you object to that forum? To presenting your proposal above there if you prefer it to what Andrew Gray proposed and I want to go with? So, as a side note, I see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Be_bold does exist as a guideline, and my two edits of paracetamol (Q57055) after seeking input were highly consistent with it. RudolfoMD (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and @Ozzie10aaaa , what was this edit about? Makes it look like I added the medicine sign. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1152801192 RudolfoMD (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually add images to interesting posts (like this one ) to hopefully attract more attention (anyway I've removed it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To "hopefully attract more attention"? Interesting... How, exactly? Whose attention does it target? Via some sort of watchlist type scheme? Why did you then remove it? Are you going to stop making such edits? Or do them differently so attribution is clear? RudolfoMD (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ozzie10aaaa? RudolfoMD (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been requesting that Ozzie stop making those (unhelpful) edits for years. They not only create the problem RudolfoMD mentions-- they also add unnecessarily to WT:MED participant watchlists, while adding nothing to the discussion. I've never seen a reason why Ozzie does it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Odd Ozzy silence above. Not a good look. How does this image connect to a project watchlist, I wonder. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She means that when you make a small edit, it appears in Special:Watchlist, even if the edit didn't add anything that you think is substantive. This can be draw attention to the section, because some people will see the image being added and consequently also see the section it was added to, but it does entail a little bit of extra work for people who are checking every edit (as opposed to people like me, who check all the edits at once). I'd rather see an image added than to see a comment that says "bump" or "adding a comment so it won't be archived", but everyone is going to have their own personal preferences.
Also, @RudolfoMD, I see that yesterday was your six-month anniversary on Wikipedia. Welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

break d[edit]

@WhatamIdoing: It depends. FDA-approved (Q111972129) can be seen here as a 'main' statement, so every qualifier applies to this particular statement and you can't have a qualifier added to a qualifier (second level of qualifiers), so you can't add an additional information that would apply for boxed warning (Q879952). Every date you add here, like start time (P580), would apply to FDA-approved (Q111972129) and not to boxed warning (Q879952).
I'm not really familiar with the US pharmaceutical law and I don't know how boxed warning (Q879952) is issued by the FDA. My example above would mean in WD something like: FDA approved paracetamol as a drug and every drug containing paracetamol in the US must be sold with a black box warning ≈ FDA approval is closely related to the obligation to indicate a black box warning. This is the simplest solution here I can think of, however, adding references to such a statement could be not so simple and would require using applies to part (P518) (main statement/qualifier) in the references section if there was no single source for information about FDA approval and black box warnings.
You need to think about the scope of information you need for boxed warning (Q879952). Do you want to specify that the black box warning should be placed from a certain date? Or for certain doses etc.?
@RudolfoMD: I still don't know why some parts of my comments on my talk page are not properly visible for you. And I still suggest that proper discussion should be conducted in WD, because any consensus reached here has no validity in WD. d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#diseases_and_rare_diseases mentioned here as a example is in fact an interesting discussion which I followed from the beginning, although I did not participate in it. We had similar in chemistry and in many other areas in WD. To put it very briefly: ontologies (not only in WD) are logical but in many cases counter-intuitive. But it also shows that there is some exchange of views in this project, it is not dead, so an attempt to discuss this topic there is not a priori doomed to failure.
Be bold in WD states that On Wikidata, no clear policy of this kind exists, and the following is thus just an emerging guideline. The page was created by an en.wiki user, edited thrice and never approved as any guideline (I corrected the false template on this page). This doesn't mean you can't make undiscussed edits. However, these types of edits, without specific preparation, often hit a wall in the form of Wikidata's complexity. Wostr (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added sourcing thus: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q879952&diff=prev&oldid=1981610608
Do you want to specify that the black box warning should be placed from a certain date? Or for certain doses etc.? No, I haven't proposed that. That's not in the source indicated above, is it? (and which, incidentally, it seems should be put into an online spreadsheet.)
Good, so Wikidata:Project_chat# is serving adequately- I see no objection.
On to proceed to seek help with the importing? RudolfoMD (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The easiest way to import a large set of data is to use d:WD:QS (or a bot). But the first thing (regardless of the import method) is to prepare the data. If [1] is the dataset, I don't see right now an easy way to associate an entry from this dataset with an item in WD. These entries are for pharmaceutical products, not for active substances. There are UNII numbers, however, if there is an entry for 'Epzicom' does it mean that the 'black box warning' statement should be added to Epzicom (Q47499269), abacavir/lamivudine (Q4663143), lamivudine (Q422631), abacavir (Q304330) or abacavir sulfate (Q27105640)? This should be sorted out first, before thinking about the method of import. d:WD:QS is one way to do it, if you have a prepared dataset. Association based on UNII may work, but it won't be perfect, there may be many incorrect additions (judging on previous mass imports that were based on only one identifier). There is also meta:Mix'n'match/Manual tool. It's not an automatic tool and way slower than QS, but may yield better results here. Wostr (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, you come across as throwing up roadblocks. Surely you know I want to use QS but can't yet and that I'm arguing that this is the way to do it, which you've surely seen, and unlike my previous edit, haven't reverted. There is an entry in the table for all four, so abacavir/lamivudine (Q4663143), lamivudine (Q422631), abacavir (Q304330) and abacavir sulfate (Q27105640)? should all have the same. I believe I already stated that it's not selected brands, but APIs that the warnings are mandated for. I don't see how to use the UNII with quicksource, but would welcome help/guidance; as I mentioned, I want to use 'em if they'd improve the import. You say "These entries are for pharmaceutical products, not for active substances" but they are the latter too. We can ignore the per-row redundancy. Is there a previous mass import based on UNII and government data where there were many incorrect additions that you can point to? What's your concern exactly? Are you claiming the FDA's own data on its own actions is highly erroneous? That's quite a claim. I'll look at Mix'n'match.
At least on .en, the API is used for article names, and the appropriate infoboxes would be tweakable to use the info to display something like
as suggested above. RudolfoMD (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a lay reader; US: ℞-only ◼︎⚠️ is no more understandable than US: ℞-only ◼︎ and looks awkward when you know the intent is to indicate the same idea. Can we explain what the ◼︎ and ▼ mean instead?
Here are some ways of doing this (with some comments of potential drawbacks):
  • link them to boxed warning – though might have to ignore that we're duplicating wikilinks when there is more than one regulatory body warning, unless there are articles for the equivalent from non-USA bodies (example, the EMA)
  • link to an {{anchor}} within the article – does require the content to exist
  • adding a {{tooltip}} – would need to consider wording as "has a boxed warning" is just as unhelpful and it is not possible to wikilink within a tooltip (though the tooltip itself can be wrapped in a wikilink)
  • using {{efn}} + {{notelist}} – this is my preferred solution and I'm struggling to argue against it (whilst the MOS for infoboxes discourages references that are used elsewhere in the article, there is no mention of other types of footnote. H:FN seems to have no problem with footnotes within an infobox either)
These are off the top of my head, there are probably alternatives. Little pob (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just trying to handle the FDA warnings, at least to start - seems plenty complicated. In general, the content doesn't exist, which precludes {{anchor}} at least most of the time and at least as an initial solution. I am not familiar with {{efn}} + {{notelist}}. What would that look/code like? I'm guessing/sounds complicated.
Maybe something like this would be good for what appears in the drugbox, speaking of complicated, under US, in the Legal Standard section. (Warning in a black box):
or
 !? (clickable!) (I guess with {{efn}} + {{notelist}} something similar but better could be achieved?) RudolfoMD (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Using {{efn}} could look something like the examples here: User:Little pob/scratchpad
As others have alluded to WP:NOMED, have kept the footnotes generic rather than along the lines of "FDA says X when taking this medication". Little pob (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. If you want to call them roadblocks, go ahead. Without my initial intervention, you could have added thousands of entries to WD, which would then all have to be deleted. Now, slowly, the idea of adding this information is taking shape and may become valuable information in WD. I spent many years in WD, millions of edits in the field of chemical compounds, and I have already seen many different cases where hasty actions led to the need for mass corrections, deletions, merging, etc.
2. I don't see how to use the UNII with quicksource, but would welcome help/guidance – the way I see it, you would have to download the FDA data, download all the WD items with UNII (two .xls spreadsheets) and then properly compare both files based on UNII so that you are left with a list of items in WD for which there is a corresponding record on the FDA list.
3. This is not the problem with FDA data, it's the problem of the data in WD. In the past there were many mass imports, most of the importers didn't care about the data consistency. In many cases we also did not have defined procedures and data models. This means that existing data problems in WD (e.g. unresolved constraint violations) cause errors to propagate to subsequent statements/items during such imports. A solution such as mix'n'match, which involves semi-automatic and manual addition of statements, is much more resistant to such problems; the use of QS, in which you are not able to manually review thousands of results and the entire adding process will take little time, is more susceptible – and in the past, QS imports based on only one identifier, e.g. the CAS number, led to many errors.
4. It is also possible that the information would first be added to the infoboxes in en.wiki, and then exported to WD as there are tools for that. Only then it would be a duplication of work, because data from WD can be imported automatically to the infoboxes in en.wiki.
5. By the way, seeing the proposal of what it could look like in the infobox and as an advocate for accessibility in my home wiki, I would like to point out your Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility guidelines. Probably, an image with an alt= attribute or abbr tag for this unicode character would be sufficient. Wostr (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. I sought feedback and got none, so I made one edit, and got some. I continue to proceed prudently.
I've just edited a second item. I intend to use QS on a handful of items and scale up in steps, checking the results and leaving time for others to do the same.
2. I don't follow. As I said twice, I want to use 'em if they'd improve the import. Not seeing an argument that they would. At the moment, it seems baroque - an unnecessary complicated detour around an ... obstacle.
3. Of course there have been bulls in the china shop. But it's important to not forget why Wikipedia works, and Nupedia didn't. I could well be wrong, but mix'n'match does not seem appropriate, as I don't anticipate much of the ambiguity it's designed to help with.
4. I see Albendazole is pulling data from WikiData. I can see the wikitext in the template, but can't make heads or tails of it:
(<code> ::::::: from Wikidata :::::::| label99 = [[ECHA InfoCard|<span title="echa.europa.eu">ECHA InfoCard</span>]] :::::::| data99 = {{#if:{{#property:P2566}} | [https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/{{#property:P2566}} {{#property:P2566}}]{{EditAtWikidata |pid=P2566}}{{main other|[[Category:ECHA InfoCard ID from Wikidata|*]]}}}} :::::::</code>)
- RudolfoMD (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Now I don't follow either. Quickstatements is an extremely powerful tool. In minutes or hours, you can do work that would normally take months of manual editing. However, the problem at the beginning is always the preparation of data that is then used in QS. For example, in recent months, using Wikidata Query Service and Quickstatements, I made tens of thousands of edits – in 30 seconds I could prepare the data allowing me to make 20,000 edits in QS (which were performed automatically). It appears that there are at least several thousand edits, if not a dozen, to be made to add the FDA data. From my point of view, it seems reasonable, instead of making these edits manually, to first properly process the data, and then be able to run QS and make all the edits automatically. In my opinion, it would be a big time saver, but I'm not going to impose this on you. I am presenting the possibilities that I know about.
4. While I am maintaining the equivalent of the Chembox template in pl.wiki, both projects are far from each other in terms of technical solutions. Based on what I see I think that the easiest way to import data from WD to en.wiki infobox would be to use something like: 
{{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|output}}
('String' module with 'match' function checks if the imported values of P3493 property contain 'boxed warning' statement; if yes, the result is then checked using 'ifeq' function and displays an 'output' text; you can test this in e.g. paracetamol in edit preview). However, this is a very clumsy solution, it would be best to write it in an appropriate module in Lua. Wostr (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS There is also d:Wikidata:Tools/OpenRefine. Maybe this tool will help. Wostr (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. I spotted the/a source of our confusion. What I've been saying is I want to use UNIIs iff they'd improve the import. I think you were reading a pronoun as referring to something else (QS or mix'n'match). Note, I said, "I intend to use QS on a..."
4. Thanks! {{#ifeq:{{#invoke:String|match|s={{#property:P3493}}|pattern=boxed warning|plain=true}}|boxed warning|<math>\begin{array}{|} \hline W\!ARNING \\ \hline \end{array}</math>}} works at [2] and is a no-op at [3]. That's helpful. And thanks to my edits with mix'n'match, now I'm eligible to use QS. So thanks for that too. Now where to put it to get it in the infobox.... RudolfoMD (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced articles[edit]

Here's a list of articles with no sources. If you have 10 minutes (=my estimate), please consider picking out one or two and adding at least one citation to it.

  1. Arthrodesis
  2. Attending physician statement
  3. Blind insertion airway device
  4. Catagmatic (technically, there's a source, but it's from the 18th century)
  5. Clinical cardiac electrophysiology
  6. Clinistrip (might be a merge-and-redirect situation?)
  7. Clinomorphism (medical linguistics)
  8. Constant visual observation
  9. Craterization (this one feels weird)
  10. Cyclospasm
  11. Cylinder manifold (equipment)
  12. Days post coitum (embryology)
  13. Dermatoxin
  14. Dose verification system
  15. Drip chamber
  16. Ectopia (medicine) (might be a Wikipedia:Set index articles)
  17. Emission computed tomography
  18. Endoluminal capsule monitoring
  19. Fibrinogen uptake test
  20. Fresh gas flow Have also proposed merge into Anaesthetic machine with redirect.
  21. Genioglossus advancement
  22. Gravindex
  23. Lowest published toxic dose
  24. Medical direction (might also happen with airplanes)
  25. Pneumonic device
  26. Pre-registration house officer (UK)
  27. Renal threshold
  28. Scavenger system (more anesthesia)
  29. Stabilization (medicine)
  30. Staphyloma
  31. Stop-loss insurance
  32. Stripper (tool) (also moved to Tube stripper)
  33. Test panel
  34. Undervirilization
  35. Walking-stalk skin flap (military history)

If you add any source, even if it doesn't cover 100% of the content in the article, please mark it off the list here, and take the big "no sources at all" tag off the article. Also, I did five articles in about 45 minutes, and if it would amuse anyone else to time themselves, I'd appreciate it if you'd post your speed here. We're talking at WP:VPIL about what it might take to get at least one source into every Wikipedia article, and knowing how long it takes for one article will help us figure out how long it will take to add a source to 119,000 articles (only 250 of which are under WPMED, because you all rock). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've struck three of these. Clinistrip needed redirecting, yeah. So did Undervirilization, though its redirect target is also badly undercited...The latter was a more interesting case, because the full text of the article was Undervirilization is a medical term describing the state of a male whose body, especially the genitalia, shows evidence of below-normal prenatal (less commonly pubertal) androgen effects. See virilization for a more detailed description of the normal process and newborn status. A very optimistic split attempt, I guess. That subject could maintain a standalone, but the way the article suite is currently organized means it'd be better to focus efforts on the core article and split off as warranted. There are a few of these in the broad disorders-of-sex-development suite -- a lot of people are enthusiastic to create articles about specific subtopics for philosophical or sociological reasons, when that might not be the best way to cover that subject under the main topic.
Ectopia was in fact a SIA, and what's stranger is it was almost, but not quite, properly tagged as a SIA. I looked in the history and the unref tag was added by a bot. Vaticidalprophet 03:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taken a look at another, which I didn't want to do too quickly because it's very sensitive (a psych intervention that's widely used but has little backing evidence). The article could be expanded, but it's still orphaned, so not high-priority for that. Vaticidalprophet 04:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medical articles being too human focused?[edit]

I've noticed this before, but one this morning reminded me. Striae gravidarum (Stretch Marks) is written as if this *only* occurs in Humans. Is there anything appropriate to add to indicate that this is something that would be found across Placental Animals? (less obvious because hidden by fur?)Naraht (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Content sections suggests a section towards the end of articles that is called ==Other animals==. If you've got a source handy, please expand the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WhatamIdoing Thank You.Naraht (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also write an article about a disease in animals if you have appropriate sources. You can even write an article about a disease in concrete animals (dogs or cats, for example). Take a look at Canine influenza, for example. D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new discussion at Talk:Sex#Is the gamete-based definition really sound and up-to-date? reminded me of this thread. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Medical Editor[edit]

Hello here, I'm a medical student who has been actively editing on English Wikipedia, I have over 100 articles on topics ranging from cuisines, libraries and cultural heritage peculiar to Nigerians.I would like to learn and be a medical editor over here as well. I hope to create as many articles surrounding health as possible under the tutelage of experienced editors.

I'm ready to learn and contribute to free knowledge. Tesleemah (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tesleemah, welcome to WikiProject Medicine! If there's a particular article(s) you'd like to start working on, feel free to post it here and we're happy to help. As a medical student, you're in the unique position where you'll be reading and learning topics all across medicine. I'd encourage you as you learn new concepts/topics/diseases in school, to check our article on the topic and see if they're up-to-date and comprehensive. When you find articles that could use some updating (as you often will), feel free to find sources and update them yourself, or flag them here and folks will be happy to work with you to update them. Please keep in mind that since the biomedical literature is so vast and contains so much back-and-forth, we find medical textbooks and review articles to be more reliable sources for current medical info than primary research papers (summarized at WP:MEDRS). Getting involved in a new topic will always result in some barriers and friction; as you hit challenges, just reach out and we'll do our best to help. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much, I will surely come here for help when necessary. Tesleemah (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! First of all, making edits, please, refer to corresponding policies, guidelines or pages via wikilinks. I had to google WPWP abbreviation to see what does it mean. You can make a wikilink to a meta page using the m: prefix. See Help:Interwiki linking for details.
As for medicine, please, read the Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research policies and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles guideline.
Also, take a look at foundation:Policy:Terms of Use, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Being an editors requires from you to be competent in both copyright and medicine. For example you need to add a wikilink (using special:diff or special:redirect/revision) to the edit summary if you're copying content from one article into another. And you can't delete a piece of content in one edit and paste it within another edit without such an attribution in edit summary. D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcome, @Tesleemah. This group was founded by medical students, so I think you're in the right place. Do you have a favorite textbook that you're using at school this year? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I'm in my 5th year optometry and one of my best textbook is clinical refraction. Tesleemah (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, then you might know the answer to my question. I was looking the other day for sources for Cyclospasm. I never found a source to explain how to get a correct diagnosis for myopia vs pseudomyopia (which I'd never heard of before). Is there any chance you could confirm any of the information in Cyclospasm or Pseudomyopia in your textbook, and cite your textbook? And maybe write a ==Diagnosis== section for that article? (I'm not even 100% sure that cyclospasm and pseudomyopia aren't the same thing, but I got the impression that cyclospasm could have several causes.) Please remove incorrect information, especially if it's unsourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, I will work on the listed articles sourcing my textbooks. Cyclospasm is different from pseudomyopia actually Tesleemah (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have cited one of my textbooks for cytoplasm now. I'm still pretty new here so I guess I have a lot of time to edit and alrk on other articles. Tesleemah (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can suggest you an idea to write an article about retinal laser injuries. I wanted to write it myself, but I probably will not have enough time for that in foreseeable future. D6194c-1cc (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I've been reading the policies and guidelines to editing medical contents for the past few days now, especially the whole concept of MEDRS, I Find them interesting already and they are all easy to understand. Tesleemah (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I've forgotten to add Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. For example, if the source says that the drug is efficient in adults, you cannot say that it is efficient only in adults (probably, it has been tested on adults only). And you cannot represent suggestions as facts unless some other reliable source (probably, more recent) says so. D6194c-1cc (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I am familiar with the principle of neutrality of Wikipedia before now, I've written some articles on English Wikipedia already. Tesleemah (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dorsal nexus[edit]

Does anyone here know a suitable place to link Dorsal nexus so as to de-orphan it? From a skim I'm guessing Prefrontal cortex would work, but I don't understand it well enough to attempt to insert anything myself, lest I mess up the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prefrontal cortex, sounds good, IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment[edit]

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPathtalk 01:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turbo cancer[edit]

This is all over teh socials from the usual rag-bag of ANTIVA grifters so I made a start on turbo cancer. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ha, thanks. Yes, I saw that on Facebook a few days ago and thought it was just another dumb Dutch thing; I should have known better. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Everything dumb seems to originate in the fever swamps of Magastan these days. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dorsal nexus[edit]

The article Dorsal nexus is an orphan for ten years now. No article refers to it. This means something is seriously wrong. Could someone please have a look at it? Should it be part of the template on cerebral cortex? Thanks! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

an editor has fixed the issue[4], thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atelectasis claim[edit]

Is this(Atelectasis develops in 75-90% of people undergoing general anesthesia for a surgical procedure.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lumb |first1=Andrew B |title=Nunn's Applied Respiratory Physiology |date=2017 |publisher=Elsevier |isbn=9780702062940 |pages=289 |edition=Eight edition}}</ref>) plausible? I cannot check as I do not have access to the source. Edit is the only contribution by the user. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duggan, Michelle; Kavanagh, Brian; Warltier, David (1 April 2005). "Pulmonary Atelectasis". Anesthesiology. 102 (4): 838–854. doi:10.1097/00000542-200504000-00021. Retrieved 7 October 2023....Atelectasis occurs in almost all patients undergoing general anesthesia
Grott, Kelly; Chauhan, Shaylika; Dunlap, Julie D. (2023). "Atelectasis". StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing....The incidence of atelectasis in patient's undergoing general anesthesia is 90%

the actual book page indicated (pg 289) is difficult to get, however it is on page 298--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The cited source says "Atelectasis occus in between 75% and 90% of healthy individuals having general anaesthesia with muscle paralysis."  The end of that paragraph is perhaps important:  "The percentage of atelectasis during anaesthesia recorded in this way seems small...equates to around 10% of lung tissue."
From a practical perspective, the lungs are underinflated, but only by ~10%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, a 10% underinflation seems quite plausible, but I would not have thought it sufficient to class as atelectasis. Then again, it is a bit outside my field of expertise. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classifications and copyright (again)[edit]

Hi all, I just stumbled upon International Classification of Headache Disorders which reprints the named classification system's hierarchy, but not the actual diagnostic criteria for each condition. My assumption is that this verbatim copy/paste violates the International Headache Society's copyright and should be removed from that article, but I figured I'd check-in here for others' thoughts. I recall a past discussion on the larger ICD codes (this discussion, I think), but I didn't follow the aftermath of that to see if there was pushback on the subsequent AfD(s). For reference, the relevant copyright declaration for ICHD is here: "...may be reproduced freely for scientific, educational or clinical uses by institutions, societies or individuals. Otherwise, copyright belongs exclusively to the International Headache Society. Reproduction of any part or parts in any manner for commercial uses requires the Society’s permission, which will be granted on payment of a fee." so clearly not compliant with our license. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's an interesting question. Simple names of phrases themselves cannot be protected by copyright ([5]). Also, there is no creative content, such as description of diseases in the list. But some of the entities might be considered to be more than just simple names or phrases (like with "precursors of migraine" which are "commonly"), I cannot judge here. Also, the arrangement of the data might be protected by copyright if it is not just simple sorting and uses some creative criteria (see WP:CILA for details). For example, ICD-11 is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO license ([6]). You'd better ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or report the problem to the Wikipedia:Copyright problems. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, doesn't the list violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY since it doesn't have any additional information? D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the absence of additional information made it be a telephone directory, then we'd have to delete a lot of our lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time for some pedantry, but fair use can be quite broad - so I'm not sure this would be violating. I think the that came up were with a material getting reused in so many places to violating fair use, and the fact that wikipedia was getting complained at by some lawyers (though this may have been related to another standard). Talpedia 01:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verdict on AI Translations?[edit]

I know that some wikipedias prohibit automatic translations, but what is the policy on using AI tools like DeepL and even ChatGPT to start a translation?

I had to write something in English and French a few days ago. I wrote it in English first, but then I put it into ChatGPT to translate it into French. When I went in to review the output, it looked better than anything I could have come up with. It even translated some very technical terms and translated the acronyms where possible. I've looked around on Reddit and people there seem to agree that it even accurately translates colloquial and slang terms.

So, could I use ChatGPT to translate articles and then do a manual review to ensure accuracy? IrateSpecialist (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia. I use Google Translate to speed up translations of my texts into English, and it uses neural networks, too (see Google Neural Machine Translation). Also, according to the laws of my country, copyrights of works created using assistant software tool belong to the author. So, you probably need to check the laws of your country, too. D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Large language models, which has been proposed as a policy, although a quick glance at the RFC suggests that it's not going to be approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's about content generation rather than content transformation. Anyway, this project is not an appropriate place for such a discussion. What is the most relevant forum to move this topic to? D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I put this topic in WikiProject Medicine because I contribute to WikiProject Med Translation. Maybe move the discussion there then? Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force How do I do that? IrateSpecialist (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is related to copyright and laws. Translators might not know all about those legal topics. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically a person who publishes content on Wikipedia is responsible for that content, its accuracy, and compliance with any relevant laws. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not eating[edit]

The redirect Not eating, which currently targets Fasting, has been nominated at RfD. While this is not solely a medical issue, it's one that does have medical relevance. Please leave any thoughts you have at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 10#Not eating. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome[edit]

A new syndrome is splashing in the media, Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome. It seems to be legit: Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Health: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association, but I'm not sure how to best create the article. I am not even sure about the dashes vs hyphens thing. If anybody wants to make a stub, that's be great. Abductive (reasoning) 06:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes it should have an article (stub) as its getting more attention ...non-profit (founded 1971)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, but MOS required use of endashes in the title: Cardiovascular–kidney–metabolic syndrome. Only 2 sentences. Please check I've not too closely paraphrased the definition given on page 4 of the release. Little pob (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prolonged Field Care[edit]

The draft page for PFC could use some expert input from prehospital, nursing and military medics. Hopefully once it’s published it can attract more editors to improve it further. TheMouseMen (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you for posting (I do NPP so I left a note[7]) -Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer review of Cataract surgery[edit]

The article has been up for peer review for a couple of months and has not attracted any comments. If anyone from this project would like to take a look in whatever detail suits them and leave any relevant comments, please go ahead. I will be nominating for FA soon and any work that can be done sooner may not have to be done later. Mainly looking for anything that has been left out that should be there. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really appreciate the information about history and the practice in developing countries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we missing an article on vector-borne diseases?[edit]

I am surprised we don't have an article on vector-borne diseases (VBD) yet. For now, I've created one that is a redirect to disease vector. I don't think this is sufficient though. We do have an article on waterborne diseases. Or perhaps it exists but under a different name that I haven't found yet?

I am coming to this topic because I am currently improving content about climate change impacts on health, e.g. climate change and infectious diseases. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report has a chapter on this (see here) and this chapter mentions vector-borne diseases (or VBD) 33 times. Mainly because climate change will make some of those diseases more common in areas where they were not before. In a nutshell, those "tropical" diseases are moving further North and South and up the mountains... Maybe those "groupings of diseases" articles are not so satisfying to work on (the overarching article infection is also only C class (1400 pageviews per day)). Anyone interested to help with this effort? EMsmile (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fluoride toxicity: newer study MEDRS?[edit]

Is the ref added by User:Ajisdragon sufficient to support the substantive change of meaning in this edit? DMacks (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a review in a good journal (see the Scopus rankings). I think that not providing any sort of Effect size is a problem for comprehension, but having skimmed most of the source, I don't really see that we can say. He's got numbers showing that there's probably some dose-dependent effect, but he doesn't even try to produce a simple statement like "2.0 mg/L costs five IQ points" (the US recommends 0.7 mg/L). I assume that's because the data simply isn't strong enough to support any simple conclusions.
Also, if you haven't had your daily dose of internet outrage yet, he hints that pregnant women shouldn't drink tea (which also contains fluoride, apparently). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah we're probably in WP:ECREE territory, though I am surprised the paper hasn't created more ripples. Last time I checked the NHS hadn't issued a warning for pregnant women to stop drinking tea! Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure it's an extraordinary claim, but I'm not sure that stating it as a certainty is DUE. I find seven recent-ish review articles (including the cited one) in MEDLINE-indexed journals at PubMed. PMID 36639015 complains about the confounding factors while agreeing that the existing studies indicate an IQ effect. PMID 37120936 found no correlation in "non-endemic fluorosis areas" and says that Further research is needed for high-fluoride areas. None of them say that fluoride is harmless or has no potential for neurodevelopmental harm. The closest we get to the conventional belief is that some of them suggest (but can't prove) that lower levels might not have a clinically significant effect.
The one I'd particularly recommend to Wikipedia editors is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922476/, subtitled "when new evidence doesn't conform with existing beliefs". This is worth at least a skim even if you have no interest in the specific subject area. The tendency to stick with "what we know that ain't so" is not a new problem. Richard Feynman told stories about this particular cognitive bias in the last century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simufilam, Cassava Sciences, and Lindsay Burns[edit]

Long time coming. Charles Piller, Science report here, and also covered by The Wall Street Journal. This needs to be worked in at Simufilam, Cassava Sciences and Lindsay Burns, who is also implicated by the sources. Thank you to all the editors who have stayed on top of this for years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving Medical Articles in Malay on Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, do any of you know anyone who edits in Malay (preferably medical topics)? I have a group who is interested in getting involved and improving articles and it would be great to connect them with a few people who are already editing.

Thanks!

JenOttawa (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JenOttawa, is this ms.wikipedia.org? (There are several languages whose English monikers are very similar.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @WhatamIdoing thanks for the quick reply. I believe that ms is the correct language. I am verifying. JenOttawa (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's how I'd go about finding people at the smaller wikis. If it's a different wiki, then you can repeat my process there.
  • Check Special:ListAdmins for familiar names and/or people who have put a Babel box on their userpage that indicates they speak English (or another language you can write in). Admins can generally be counted on to know the rules for their local wiki, and also to be watching each other's talk pages, so if you leave a note for one of the 15 admins, then some of the others will likely see it as well.
  • Look at Special:ActiveUsers for familiar names and/or people who make a lot of edits. This wiki ("mswiki") has about 600 editors making at least one (1) in any given month. Assume that a third of them make a couple of edits and a few percent make a lot of edits. In this case, there are about 20 editors who made 100+ edits during the last month. Those people are the ones you would want to talk to.
  • Check this history for a handful of "big" articles and see if there are any active editors listed there. For example, Fandi89 translated a COVID-19 article.
  • They have a WikiProject Medicine (w:ms:Wikipedia:WikiProjek Perubatan; see d:Q4099686 for the complete list), but there are no comments on the talk page. w:ms:Wikipedia:WikiProjek Perubatan/Ahli lists the six members, four of whom – WAqil, Hakimi97, Wiki Farazi and CyberTroopers – are active editors.
At the smaller wikis, communication mostly happens on User_talk: pages. But if you want a central forum, then w:ms:Wikipedia:Kedai Kopi (cadangan) ("Village pump (proposals)") gets the most discussion, and w:ms:Wikipedia:Kedai Kopi (lain-lain) ("Village pump (miscellaneous)") is where official announcements get dumped.
If this group mostly wants to translate articles, then there may still be useful information on pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/About or Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/Integration guides/Integration. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are excellent tips. Thank you for taking the time to share them.JenOttawa (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. I hope that the group works out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asperger syndrome[edit]

Picked up from the hot articles list that Asperger syndrome is currently under going a rewrite. Might need some WP:MED input (the lead is off and the rest is not within my competency). Thanks, Little pob (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the goal of the re-write? Asperger's officially stopped existing (though it's still a personal identity for some people) some years ago, but we haven't re-written the article to reflect this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks to be turning in to quite a mess, and best I can tell, Ruedi33a has never posted to the talk page. It would be good to hear from them as to their understanding of WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS and WP:LEAD, as starters. The article was dated, but a dated article may be preferred to what is there now, and Ruedi33a's work may be heading towards a revert if they don't seek more collaboration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw the message "This article needs to be updated. The reason given is: some parts of the article do not accurately reflect either the new DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria, February 2022)" and started my standard approach: migrate every citation to sfn and check whether it still exists, can it be replaced or is outdated (DSM-4 or ICD-10). You are the first to contact me, so let us start talking. For me, the scientific journey of "Asperger syndrome" has come to an end and the article I found was a mess in terms of citations and being up-to-date. What rules exist for articles about "dead" diagnoses?Ruedi33a (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ruedi33a, let's start with the simple things; as Little pob mentions, the lead is quite off, and I suggest that the older version should be restored and converted to past tense where necessary. From there, updating and switching to past tense where applicable in the body would be the next step. Then, it is usually helpful to re-write the lead last, as leads are summaries of the body. And finally, your edits are introducing a very odd structure with respect to the medical content guidelines, and I am hoping that you understand sourcing guidelines for medical content. Whether the condition still exists as a separate diagnosis doesn't change any of what needs to be done, other than it affects present vs. past tense, and no special "rules" exist or apply to past tense diagnoses as far as I know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, you should never migrate to a different citation style without gaining consensus; for example, in this case, Asperger syndrome was long a featured article, so has a well-established citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruedi33a thank you for reverting your changes, apologies for not dropping a note on your talk that was bringing here for med editors input. Little pob (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1180733195"