Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MEDICINE)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Edit with VisualEditor

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

Pfizer vaccine: INN or common name?[edit]

COVID-19 vaccine

Discussion here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Surprised you went against WP:MEDTITLE Ozzie. Must say, I find it a bit distasteful how there's a push to get "Pzifer" up front in this name (particular in the US) , despite the fact the virus was apparently BioNTech's invention. Alexbrn (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
its still WP:COMMONNAME...IMO(this isnt about the brand)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Are there WP:MEDRS sources that show that tozinameran is the INN for BNT162b2 or the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine? Health Canada uses it that way. Is that sufficient? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Health Canada is a stringent regulatory authority, so I presume that would be more than sufficient. The EMA/CHMP documentation just released also confirms "tozinameran" as the active ingredient of Comirnaty. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the EMA needs to get their documentation updated. The new Comirnaty EPAR shows COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside-modified) as the "International non-proprietary name (INN) or common name" and Single-stranded, 5’-capped messenger RNA produced using a cell-free in vitro transcription from the corresponding DNA templates, encoding the viral spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 as the "Active substance". --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Topiramate carbonation grimace[edit]

Hello, I have added a video to the page Topiramate depicting myself experiencing the "carbonation grimace" reaction that is popularly known to occur as a side-effect of Topiramate. I am a novice editor and hope that anyone would double-check my addition to see if it meets guidelines. Henstepl (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Henstepl and thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. Short clips are particularly useful on the encyclopaedia, for example, demonstrating the tics of Tourette syndrome. I'm aware of the possible side-effect on appetite of topiramate but this is the first I've heard of a "carbonation grimace". I did some Googling to see if we can get a better source than "Geek Mamas Magazine", per the medical sourcing guideline WP:MEDRS. I managed to find one very recent case report and a mention by the American Migraine Foundation, both suggesting it may make carbonated drinks taste "flat". Your Commons file description of your personal experience seems stronger than just "flat" and such a strong reaction you involuntarily grimace and can't bear to finish the drink. Google also turns up similar personal-experience tales.
In terms of sourcing requirements, a single case report and some forum comments don't cut the grade, nor does your personal experience I'm afraid. The AMF comment is a better source, but is just a single source, and WP:WEIGHT makes us consider whether the body of secondary literature considers this important enough to note. The major website sources on drugs (e.g. BNF, do mention "altered taste". The topiramate article already mentions the "uncommon" side-effect: dysgeusia -- which is just the medical term for that. I checked the sources we use for the "Adverse effects" list, and they confirm it affects fewer than 10% of patients in trials. How much of that altered-taste was to carbonated drinks and how much was other tastes, we don't know.
While your description of the effect on you is real, and valid for Commons, I think if the video clip is to be retained on the Wikipedia article, we'd have to have a caption that sticks to what the reliable sources widely document: that altered taste is one of the possible side effects. And we'd need to pick one of the high quality sources that backs that up. Perhaps in future, more reliable sources will specifically document the carbonated-drink effect. -- Colin°Talk 17:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If we could use our own personal experiences, I'd be tempted to put "tastes like malted battery acid" in the articles about carbonated drinks. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Purely out of curiosity, how do you know? Narky Blert (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Why, I read it in a reliable source, of course! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
What a mess that article is. I can barely bare ( :o ) to look at yet another dreadful drug article on Wikipedia. Ajpolino, I wonder if the MCOTW on Dexamethasone has gone nowhere so far, because neither can anyone else! They are so bad across the board that it is painful, and I don't know even where to begin to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe... but that hardly explains the relatively low participation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month. My guess is that folks have limited bandwidth available to take on a side project. Perhaps we'll take January off and see if folks are more interested in maintaining a Collaboration of the Every-Other Month. Merry Christmas! Ajpolino (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages[edit]

I've collected another batch of articles with medicine-related links to DAB pages where expert attention would be welcome. When I came to check my bookmarks, something like 80% had been fixed; these are what remain. Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

wrong wikiproject? if here because someone thought the relevant abbreviations are from prescriptions, that one is different - "Sig" for "Signa" is imperative "mark" or "label" — soupvector (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, and Compliments of the Season. Narky Blert (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert, I think we're done with this list, unless someone has an idea about how to handle Sign (disambiguation) in the List of medieval abbreviations. Maybe Andrew Dalby could help with that one. Thanks for posting the list, and thanks to Spicy, Soupvector, and Iztwoz for getting this list done so quickly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, all! I expect I'll be back sometime next year. I may try touting "sign" around other WikiProjects. Narky Blert (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Why me, by the way? Happy to try to help but, in fact, I can't help much. I think the redirects should be to "meaning", which is a simpler way of saying "signification". However, meaning is itself a disambig page, and the Latin abbreviation could, I think, in different contexts be linked to any of the first three pages that are listed on that disambig page. So we would still end up with links to a disambig page, just a different one. Sorry, better see what someone else thinks ... Andrew Dalby 14:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Why you? Because you know Latin, and I don't. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yes, I have to admit that's a good reason. Happy Christmas, by the way Andrew Dalby 10:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Please check Pseudofolliculitis barbae for unreliable sources/adverts[edit]

A recent deletion discussion of this article on Polish Wikipedia (with a note that it is based on our English ones) also sports comments about some sources being promotional/unreliable, and there are socking attempts. So, enough red flags for me to ask experts here for a glance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed a couple of blatantly inappropriate sources. I never thought I'd see someone try to cite WikiHow in a medical article. It's too late here for me to dig any deeper. Spicy (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Helping new editors: Learn Wikipedia's unique culture[edit]

I recently suggested to a new editor (a medical student) that he/she/they seek to understand Wikipedia's unique culture. I wrote:

I suggest looking at Wikipedia as you would a patient and his/her/their family who are from a completely different culture than your own. Different religious background, different beliefs about health and healing, different gender role expectations, different language, etc. If you are the physician such a patient sees, you have to do your best to understand your patient's cultural background so that you can communicate effectively and treat them with respect and dignity.

Wikipedia is like such a patient because Wikipedia has its own culture, traditions, policies, and procedures. I can rail against the stupid ways things are done here (and there are a few ... ;^), but that's analogous to chastising a patient for "not doing what I said" when I didn't take the time to understand them to begin with.

So, I encourage you to look at this as an exercise in developing cross-cultural competence. You might decide you don't want to invest your time and energy in learning Wikipedia's culture, which is fine. But if you do want to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, understanding this unique, kind of wacky culture at Wikipedia is an important first step.

I'm sure I am not the first Wikipedian to think of this approach. Are there any essays, guides, etc., that discuss this idea? I want to provide the most helpful info to new editors. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that WP's culture is either unique or wacky. Yes of course we have some odd, even inexplicable, rules; all societies do. I'll give a different analogy: our duty as editors is like that of the expert witness, whose duty it is to give impartial evidence to the court. I could easily cite several cases which went the way they did because the judge concluded that (apart from himself, of course!) there was only one honest person present. Narky Blert (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I can see how "wacky" might offend, so let's remove that adjective. I still believe our culture is unique, and more importantly, it is different compared to what potential new editors from academia, healthcare, etc. are accustomed to. My aim here is to retain new editors who show an interest in regular editing. (I assume that attracting and retaining productive new editors is a shared desire, but perhaps I am mistaken?) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia does a poor job of retaining new editors, and I think that there is a minority of established editors with a bit of a "pull up the ladder behind me" attitude. The idea that new editors are bad editors is both true and bad. We are more short-sighted than many of the other Wikipedias. If you look back at any of our early edits, you'll see how much help we all needed and how we screwed up. A few examples: I thought that {{Cancer}}and [[:Category:Cancer]] were two interchangeable ways of writing the same thing, so I "helped" by randomly removing either the navbox or the category. The first article I wrote (which was about a highway?!) was partly sourced to a personal website. I once carefully merged two articles that had similar names but that were actually different subjects. Someone else had proposed the merge, nobody had commented, and I thought I was helping by implementing the stale request, until another editor (one of our physicians) noticed what I'd done the next day. But now that we're here, quite a number of us don't extend the same grace to the people who make the same mistakes that we made.
Some of this is the sort of difference you can explain: Academia may want you to cite the original or more authoritative primary source; we want you to cite a medical textbook or the most recent review article in a decent journal. We have some of those explanations, e.g., at Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia.
We have our quirks, such as barnstars and pretending that reputation doesn't matter (True story: Last month, an editor suggested last month that there could be an optional feature that he could use to hide everyone's usernames on his own screen. Some prominent editors told him that Wikipedia's principle of "transparency" required him to look at their names. That's not "transparency"; that's demanding that we maintain a system that gives me more power than 99% of editors).
We also have our problems. For example, we have editors who remove all articles from any journal that Jeffrey Beall considered, however briefly, to have a borderline publisher some years ago, and without noticing that some of them (e.g., Frontiers in Plant Science) are currently ranked in the top 5% of journals in their field now. I think that this is better understood as a cultural situation: We think it is so very important to show off our anti-woo, pro-science POV that we are willing to remove review articles from top-ranked journals that meet every written rule in the policies and guidelines.
Then there are the things that I don't know how to classify. We are largely an inhuman site. We expect you to work like a bot that happens to have very clever language skills. We yell at people for normal human behaviors, like making small talk or asking to connect on social media. We think there is something wrong with you if you react to a tersely worded warning as if, well, as if I'd given you a tersely worded warning. You're supposed to think that I was being helpful if I write something formal like "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted" on your talk page. That's ...not how humans work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't claim to know a great deal about wikipedia culture. I'd note that some of the guides present a bit of an idealized vision of how things are, rather than how things actually are. I also get the impression that their can be a little "internet larping" going on at times. I would point at the existence of this book - old and getting a bit long, but still interesting. I'd also note that sometimes more knowledge doesn't help exactly. I remember an experience on some question and answer sites where I would go out of my way to "preanswer the stupid questions" and found that the response was "it s too complicated", sometimes you just have to let a process play out. I sort of think about Mill a bit when I think about this, and some lectures by Jonathan Haidt about values and the academic system. Also see WP:Expert Talpedia (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Try {{subst:MedWelcome}}, as that briefly covers the important of secondary (rather than primary) sources, or one of the other welcome messages on their talk page.Klbrain (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Markworthen: I think that's a really helpful way of looking at it. I've seen several academics and a few clinicians jump into editing with a certain idea of how things should work around here (based, I assume, on the culture of reading/writing they're steeped in professionally), then leave just as quickly when they come up against some resistance. The one I see in academics the most is thinking that writing a Wikipedia article is the same as writing a review article, i.e. they use their personal knowledge of a field to decide which primary sources ought to support content. Slapping a banner on their talk page that links to MEDRS is something I find to be generally unhelpful. Without the cultural explanation, they tend to walk away thinking we're self-important idiots. For the newer editors here (or the more established editors with better memories than me) do you remember particular barriers or surprises that the rest of us should be aware of? I accept that onboarding new editors will always be a challenge, but anything we can do to improve that process could do our project a huge service. Ajpolino (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a medical editor per se, but I find that I get much better engagement from new editors in most spheres when I leave a short, casual, human-sounding note at their talk page rather than a template. People are just hard-wired to ignore boilerplate-sounding messages, especially if they're loooooong and technical. "Hey, I removed the edit you made at Some Article because An Extremely Short Explanation. Let's have a conversation before you add it back, okay?" Something like that takes a minute to type out, and the return on time investment is typically much better than reverting and templating repeatedly. ♠PMC(talk) 01:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
We do see a few people who expect their real-world status to transfer over, and they are sometimes surprised or disappointed to discover that it doesn't. Some quit; others (maybe even most) come to appreciate it, maybe because they understand that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog (or a PhD). In the situation you describe, I tend to take a "Sorry, I know it's weird, but..." approach. It's not bad to write a review article; it's just not how we (should) do it here.
Let's see what some newer folk think. GPinkerton, Wname1, Danende, Jaredroach, Velayinosu, DrVogel: Your accounts are all less than three years old. What sticks in your mind as being strange, difficult, or wrong about editing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I've actually been around for a decade or so, but don't edit very much. The culture has changed a lot. It used to be that Wikipedia came across as repository of all knowledge; if there was an arcane subject, one could write an article about it. Now the emphasis on article creation seems almost more about what is NOT in Wikipedia than what belongs in Wikipedia. I am also surprised by how protective the culture is of the male dominated and crude language that seems to grip those who are most in control. Given the attention to diversity in the world at large, it would be nice to see Wikipedia move in that direction as well. Jaredroach (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. I seen a reasonable amount of bluntness, indifference, ani threats, and personal attacks, but not really crude language (in the sense of swearing / metaphor). What aspects of wikipedia do you consider to be male-dominated. Talpedia (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I must admit that as a man I often do not recognize the traditional masculine ethos that permeates Wikipedia. The fish who doesn't see the sea and all that. The following article helped me comprehend and discern the problem more fully. Some might characterize this article (below) as recondite, and it is certainly deep, but it's not inaccessible or exceedingly obscure. After I granted myself sufficient time to understand unfamiliar words and concepts, I began to appreciate the authors' astute, erudite, and profound arguments. I highly recommend taking the time to read this article and to ponder its implications for Wikipedia moving forward.

Menking, Amanda, and Jon Rosenberg. "WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and Other Stories Wikipedia Tells Us: A Feminist Critique of Wikipedia’s Epistemology." Science, Technology, & Human Values. Published ahead of print, 13 May 2020. (Open access). (PDF).

Sincerely - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Here are some characteristics associated (rightly or wrongly) with masculine communication and that we see at the English Wikipedia:
  • A strong orientation towards Us vs them – this goes along with black-and-white thinking. Either you are a good editor, or you are an inappropriate self-promoting newbie spammer. We are in charge, and they are nothing.
  • Independent action is valued – just Wikipedia:Be bold. Don't bother us with questions about all the complicated rules. There's plenty of time to yell at you later if you screw up.
  • Content is more important than contributors – it's okay if we destroy your love for Wikipedia, as long as we get the content right. Please be sure to get it right on the first try, because I'll just revert you instead of building on your contribution if you get anything wrong at all. Snarky comments in the kick-him-while-he's-down range get thanked.
  • Winning matters – we talk a lot about consensus, but we don't reward or honor people who compromise to find a wide consensus. You need to win, and the other side needs to lose.
  • Direct, blunt, instrumental communication is normal and encouraged – look at the conversations around user warning templates. "Clarity" is a key concern. Encouraging people to grow into productive contributors is not. (How helpful do we think those really are? The editors who write them and use them the most also tell you that it's disrespectful to post those templates on their own talk pages.)
There are also positive aspects: Being detail oriented makes for precise, accurate articles. We are loyal to our friends. If your problem can be solved by providing information, then we will provide that information.
And, of course, these labels don't map neatly to every person's gender, nor are they absolute. I'm a woman, but I have a somewhat masculine communication style, and almost all of us use both "masculine" and "feminine" styles in different situations.
Now I'm going to go read Mark's linked paper. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I had a read of this. I think I agree with the content of article itself - I've partaken of the epistemic injustice koolaid before, so can follow the terminology. I'd note that the article itself does not show evidence that women are excluded - but provides some citations that I am yet to read. There's a question about what level of representation you need to get "group objectivity", it may well be less that proportional representation of a group - or in some cases more, and one needs to think careful about trade offs are values of the things that might prevent proportional representation (though of course, all things being equal, if any impediment to involvement can be removed with little cost it should be). I also only really ascribe to "weak epistemic relativism": unique perspective can provide valuable critiques that should be considered rather than objectivity being impossible (though as you walk into sociology epistemic relativism becomes more and more true). I also have my concerns that for critique to be functional it must be possible in some way to argue against the critique - such that it provides a more complete truth Talpedia (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
One of our best editors got started back in the day by basically adding fun trivia to medical articles, such as a particularly cool paper about some minor detail (not key content such as whether a drug works, but little things that might illuminate a mechanism or take a different approach). For the last several years, that kind of content has been reverted on sight because "MEDRS says absolutely totally no primary sources no matter what I don't care I can't hear you". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback and ideas thus far. Very helpful! Talpedia - Thank you for the essay, WP:Expert - I had not seen that before (or I had forgotten it). Klbrain - Great suggestions. I often leave welcome messages, although following PMC's advice, I will endeavor to add a personal message. And I've seen {{subst:MedWelcome}} before, but I haven't used it very often, but I will now. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for a fascinating discussion. I'm afraid I struggled with the linked paper: I'm sure most of the comprehension issues I had were due to my small brain and lack of experience reading that domain, but I also found it ironic that a paper discussing problems with Wikipedia should itself be inaccessible to the "general reader". I also struggled a bit with the references to other papers, cited as though those authors had established hard facts, or even consensus opinion, rather than just expressed random other opinions about Wikipedia. Anyone want to take a stab at summarising it? Or is it too complex a thought piece to summarise?
In contrast, I was able to follow the discussion here (I think), and found myself nodding many times, particularly WhatamIdoing's thoughts. But what is to be done about it? We currently have a huge and prominent sub-topic of Medicine, where new editors who put the wrong thing between the <ref></ref> tags, and who exhibit normal, expected, albeit imperfect response-behaviour to being reverted, are, within minutes of dipping a toe in the water, given a final warning that they face being topic banned from all of Medicine, blocked from editing Wikipedia, and their name added to a "sanctioned users" wall of shame. Sorry for the length of that sentence. Perhaps WP:MED has improved: previously there was more of the pile-on of people kicking the newbie/unbeliever in the kidneys, and heaven help them if they went to ANI to complain. But I feel there is still a lot of turning a blind eye going on. A talk page "welcome" message isn't surely all we can do. -- Colin°Talk 21:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I guess my summary of the paper would be that wikipedia should pay more attention to building a community and a process that produces good quality material, rather than just the content of the pages itself, and that key to having a process that can produce a community is diversity because no individual is capable of being aware of their blindspots. To me the distinction isn't exactly male / female more "high-trust ongoing versus low-trust short term" interactions. In the former you make sacrifices for long term interactions (a.k.a politeness / morality) in the later not so much. From my experience using "high-trust" behaviours in "low-trust" environments doesn't necessarily work that well for your well being, you can end up feeling repeatedly taken advantage of by people who don't "play be the rules". The thing is that wikipedia does get some value from "low-trust / drive-by" editing - particularly of the "someone of the internet is wrong variety". I'd also note that "us versus them" is more of a high-trust relationship phenomenon than low trust. I'd also note that some conflict is of value for "epistemic objectivities" and high-trust interactions make conflict difficult, in a sense you want an environment with friends *and* nemeses. There are probably metaphors to your supervisor / external examiners in a PhD or your company versus "the economic world" here. Talpedia (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm very much in agreement with your first sentence, and I hope WP:MED is getting better and has learned from past mistakes. I'm less confident in my ability to understand or characterise the behavioural good and bad qualities of the project in fancy language, only in simple terms: kindness, goodwill, collaboration, openness, listening, respect vs hostility, bullying, ownership, cliques, shouting, dismissal. -- Colin°Talk 10:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
So I used to internally call this sort of viewpoint "more goodness". The thing is that there are ands and versus there. goodwill versus truth, kindness and cliques and dismissal, openness versus collaboration, listening versus kindness, goodwill versus openness, goodwill and cliques versus shouting and openness. The desire for simplicity is the refusal attempt to understand these trade offs and a willingness to potentially create a *lot* of the bad in exchange or a little of the good, either through the bad not being visible to you or because you choose to not think about it or willingly ignore it. This viewpoint can be equally or more prejudicial than an approach that uses fancy language because the fancy language is hopefully there for nuanced thought rather just or its linguistic effect - your humbleness comes at a price to others often mediated by your prejudice. Of course, many situations are simple enough that the fancy language does nothing for you and elbow grease and conspiring to avoid the situation that requires the nuance sources can work quite well - maybe you can have you cake and eat it - maybe it's more important to solve the simple problems first. Talpedia (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite following your reply. I don't doubt that it is important for folk having deep thoughts about this to use very precise terminology and the jargon of the field. I'm not trying to dismiss it as just a lot of fancy talk. And I'm sure these things are not entirely reducible to simplistic explanations without losing vital elements. Ultimately, though, it still comes down to: what are we going to do about it. -- Colin°Talk 11:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the last part. I guess I felt that there was argument along the line of "the fancy speech is there to justify nastiness" - which I tried to address Talpedia (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
No, that wasn't my argument at all. I genuinely founding it somewhat impenetrable. However, I am probably prejudiced about external publications analysing Wikipedia because I have seen so few that didn't make me want to sigh, but I hope that was offset by Mark's recommendation. As an aside, I counted the editor that the paper is dedicated to, Adrianne Wadewitz, as a wikifriend: one of the very few academics who understood how Wikipedia worked and thus was able to successfully run class assignments on it. -- Colin°Talk 15:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
There is another side to that image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Coming late to this conversation, so I'm not sure where to best intersperse my comments, and will add it all at the end. I like Mark's general notion, but suggest that to avoid yet another page of instructions and descriptions and links and templates that never get read, that if he wants to do something, he might think about keeping it strictly focused on the researcher or practicing professional who has a hard time understanding the differences in Wikipedia writing, as the issues there are quite different than the issues, for example, with student writing.

I reject any notion that gender issues are somehow related; perhaps that I studied and worked in male-dominated fields, where I was usually the only female, means I just don't get it, because I don't. I think digressing into that usually takes our eyes off the more important balls, which here, are problems in how we treat newcomers.

Ajpolino asks if any of us "remember particular barriers or surprises that the rest of us should be aware of". I recall that it was very hard to figure out how to use Wikipedia (for months, I had something on my user page about "where's the instruction manual for this thing"), but the helpme template on talk always got a speedy response. More relevant to us here at WP:MED, the "anyone can edit" aspect for me, at first, generated disastrous results. I was trying to write Tourette syndrome, and no one at WT:MED knew anything about it, so that each time I came here with a question, I actually got bad advice (one physician telling me they couldn't believe that X was the case, since TS was a very rare condition is one example I can remember), so that I gave up on WP:MED at one point early on.

Berchanhimez tells us very clearly that the use of rollback and quick deletions is very offputting. And he put his money where his mouth is, and tried very hard to get something going (see User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch109#New editor "patrol") to address that. I am concerned he may have given up, dejected. As long as we have colleagues willing to accept whack-a-mole deleting and rolling back, we should expect to have a recruitment problem, and we should all reject that kind of editing, which often occurs as a misunderstanding of what MEDRS supports.

I am also curious about why some editors, even with a research writing background, seem to fit in seamlessly (Ajpolino, Berchan), where others seem to struggle no matter how much I/we try to mentor and instruct (and I have spent an inordinate amount of time in that realm).

Also, we have SO many articles unnecessarily semi-protected, that how are we to recruit new editors, who may want to first edit as an IP? The treatment of IPs and "newbies" is often horrific ... see a thread on this page now maligning a long-term and knowledgeable IP who routinely posts here. We seriously need to deal with this mentality, and move beyond the whack-a-mole mentality. I think we have so many ways that we need to get our house in order, regarding how we bring IPs and new editors in to the fold, that I wish we wouldn't see yet another conversation digress into being all about gender. We have problems equally at prostate cancer (one in six men) and osteoporosis (one in six women), and at times we give too much focus to niche topics, and neglect our highly viewed pages and core content. We give the impression of a group with odd priorities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

To address just a tiny part of your comment, Cryptic was kind enough to give me a list of all protected pages under WP:MED. I dumped it all in my userspace and am hoping to clean up this list a bit and bring it here for discussion in the new year. Perhaps we can all pick a few to adopt and trial unprotection. It's not going to suddenly solve our recruitment woes, but I think bringing protection levels down to the lowest level necessary is a worthy cause regardless. Ajpolino (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Saw the ping and figured I'd respond since I have a bit of time... it's not so much that I gave up, more so that IRL has been... hectic? busy? I'm not sure there is a word for it. I agree with your summary of my view - rollback, deletions, undos, etc are very off-putting to many new editors. My sandbox pages (linked from my userpage) for new-user welcome and info page are open to all to use/edit/improve/work on - and I think it's honestly a documentation and "catching them before they leave" problem. I was lucky in that I had seen WP:MED in some news stories so when I was confused or shy at the beginning I knew where to go - most probably don't even know that a "wiki project" exists. If we can catch them before they give up and leave altogether, and "mentor" them to be good editors, that will help. I know the word mentor is scary because it implies a lot of time, but just a simple message of "hey, we were all there once, and I'm going to try to help you" is what I'm referring to. Give them some names to ping when they have problems - I was blessed to have SG and a few others who reached out and I could ping when I had concerns/questions and they answered them. On that note, I'm about to go give another few hundred shots probably.. and myself am dealing with a bit of malaise after getting the first dose of Pfizer on Monday, so I will likely not be available for any in-depth conversations.
My suggestion is this: new editors that are struggling should be encouraged to work on a new article (or expanding a stub) before they get into more developed articles. For me, this was injector pen or depot injection, and the process of developing those made me learn the policies/procedures very well. If new editors are struggling on articles that are already written, having them work "from scratch" may help. Feel free to ping me for any more discussion, but I can't promise quick replies. I'm more likely to respond quickly to emails or in the wikiproject-medicine channel in the Wikipedia discord server - both of those notify me immediately but I hardly open Wikipedia once a day if even that nowadays...
Hope everyone's staying safe and well and happy new year to everyone. Once my work dies down I'll be back and already have my next few improvements planned (subcutaneous injection being one I started on but haven't had time to dive into since the vaccine(s) were approved). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Two points. I wonder whether there is a "vicious cycle" that pushes editors into not being good editors (e.g. the first conflict => conflict mindset => escalation. I guess looking at case studies would be useful) - they alternative is to assume that there is some very difficult to change property of editors that don't stick around. I wonder whether there is an alternative to editing (such as reviewing pages / suggesting sources / reviewing / wikignoming / linking) that could somehow relax the learning / conflict curve and give people the time to both have some good experiences before their first conflict and osmose some culture early on. Talpedia (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts. As to first conflict --> mindset, I know that as a recently established and productive editor, I had such a horrific experience with an admin cabal that I wrote off adminship permanently, and still abhor the idea, in spite of now knowing scores of very decent admins, and in spite of those who attacked me being sanctioned. My mindset against ever wanting to be in the "club" was permanently set by an early negative experience, that has not been erased by subsequent positive experiences. Negative experiences imprint deeply.
Perhaps WAID knows how we can activate some of your alternatives to editing to engage IPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Talpedia, there are some difficult-to-change things around editors, but the odds can be changed. Typical numbers (noting that the English Wikipedia's numbers are worse than average) are something like this:
  • 10 editors create an account.
  • 3 of them manage to make their first edit.
  • Only one ever edits again (e.g., on another day, and even that person is unlikely to make 10 edits this year).
One common story is that if your first contribution gets removed entirely, you shrug your shoulders and say "I guess I'm not good enough" or "I guess Wikipedia doesn't want me". Looking at some editors who appeared in Special:RecentChanges about two hours ago, about a third of the contributions will get reverted within minutes. In my small sample (n=10), I found three already-reverted edits (including an edit war over Functional medicine that may indicate that there are multiple separate things that use the same name, or that we've got a WP:YESPOV failure), an under-sourced but (I think) accurate update to an anatomy article, someone adding a ref, and the rest where either uncontroversial edits (e.g., adding missing punctuation) or likely to survive (e.g., updating a sports table). But if you look at our three new editors and think "one gets reverted instantly, one gets reverted eventually, and one survives", then you might have approximately the right feel.
Our response to newcomers overall is poor. This isn't always because someone's being mean to the newbie; it can also mean that we're throwing people in the deep end and then needing to send lifeguards after them. Rational people might give up on swimming when their first experience produces all harms and no benefits.
On the gender question, our overall-poor response has a disproportionately discouraging effect on women and on Asian and African people. There are different cultural ideas about what it means when I treat a stranger and a newcomer like "that". If you're, ay, a stereotypical American netizen, then personal conflict can be an engaging source of entertainment and an opportunity to win. If, on the other hand, you're a native Japanese person, you would have a very different reaction. It's hard for the first group to interact in ways that encourage the second group to continue editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of promising newish editors, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:New pages patrol/Reviewers[edit]

There's a discussion at WP:NPP/Reviewers about a new article on a medical imaging technique. Members of this WikiProject may be interested in commenting. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at COVID-19 vaccine[edit]


An editor, Roland Of Yew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is edit-warring to insert content about a vaccine's efficacy into COVID-19 vaccine, based only on press releases and newspaper reports. I'd be very grateful for more eyes on the article, which is not in good shape. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you all know; I am unwatching all vaccine and COVID articles. Again. Ping me if needed. I have had severe anaphylactic reactions to both aspirin and penicillin, lucky to be a block from a hospital both times, and have been made severely ill by two different vaccines recently. I just don't need to be reading the kind of crap people are plopping in to those articles, as I am scared enough without reading laypress garbage. I hope "they" will eventually sort out what to do with people like me so that I can get the vaccine under the most safe scenario, but I'll be shaking in fright when I do. Just can't read those pages right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Buruli ulcer a Featured article candidate[edit]

Buruli ulcer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buruli ulcer/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And now a featured article. Congratulations to Ajpolino, and all who pitched in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

An Important Article is getting removed[edit]

I expanded the article MedPage Today, few days back from its status of redirection. It was tagged with speedy deleted and now listed for deletion discussion - I have devoted too much time and improved the article great length. Please help so that a quality article can stay. MentroPat (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Psychopathy confusion[edit]

Hello, I have recently taken up writing Haltlose personality disorder - and one of the terms that keeps coming up in any discussion on Kraepelin's psychopathies is "Gemütlose", the subtype with the most in similar to Haltlose (which is considered its mirror in that they are the only two of the seven psychopathies to share multiple exclusive traits). Like Haltlose, it is virtually impossible it seems to find it referenced in English-language sources...and as I try to track down its modern definition I'm left blindly fumbling. I'm seeing suggestions online that Reactive attachment disorder is what Bowlby called 'Affectionless Psychopathy', which itself was described by Emil Kraepelin, Kurt Schneider and other as one of the seven forms of psychopathy, "Gemütlos/e/n", but it's not clear that these are the same disorder and not just reusing common German words perhaps in a different context. Anybody able to tell me whether Kraepelin/Schneider/other's findings on the Gemütlosen Psychopathen would belong in the RAD article or elsewhere? I'd rather not start a whole new "Gemütlose psychopathy" article if it is commonly considered by another name these days. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NONENGLISH sources are acceptable, if they are otherwise good sources. The main problem with that subject is that basically only German psychologists believe that it's 'a thing'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Bingo, Haltlose I can create an article on it because it is listed in the ICD-10 so it is different from Dependent PD, Borderline PD, Antisocial PD, etc which it closely resembles...but Gemütlose is not in the DSM or ICD, so I doubt I'll ever be able to make an article on it...but it seemed like possible RAD was the new name for it (I know nothing about RAD) and yet I couldn't find a source explicitly stating "Gemütlose is now called..." or even "The diagnosis of Gemütlose was abandoned when...". Ideally even if not in its own article, I'd like to clarify that Gemütlose "is now considered a combination of X and Y" or "Z when X is not present" or something...I mean Schneider and Kraepelin are major figures in Psychopathy worldwide (though yes, Haltlose remains largely a European diagnosis limited to Germany, France, Switzerland and some Eastern European universities, and then less-academic acknowledgement of it outside those countries) - it just seems bizarre that Gemütlose alone has simply vanished without an explanation of why. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there an article about Haltlose personality disorder on the German Wikipedia? Just curious. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
No. There are articles at the Dutch, Portuguese, Romanian, and Simple English Wikipedias, but not at the German Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to our last discussion on the article. Most editors agreed then that the article needed to be merged (somewhere). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

a) No, we discussed at the time, you and one anonymous IP editor felt that way and suggested reducing a heavily sourced, heavily relevant and heavily-linked-to article about a diagnosis that exists in the ICD-10 should be reduced to a passing mention in "some other article somewhere" ignoring the fact it's larger than just about any article into which it could be merged. It has 154 different sources almost entirely drawn from peer-reviewed medical journals, textbooks and other reliable sources. Also, this question is not about Haltlose, I am asking about Gemütlose Psychopathy which is one of Kraepelin's seven types. Please do not misrepresent past discussions, nor drag this one off-course. In case I am at fault for not conveying it clearly, let's talk about Gemütlose - specifically, my question of whether anyone has any ability to find out if it has a modern name, or is strictly historical and abandoned. If coming to this page to ask medical questions just results in "people" calling for my pages to be deleted (without success) I'm liable to stop reaching out for help. That wouldn't be good for anyone. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
It only "exists" in the ICD under the label "Other specific personality disorders", along with examples such as Passive–aggressive personality disorder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To put it in perspective, in 1940 The Lancet itself suggested that Adolf Hitler might be a prime example, since "it may seem that to include Hitler among the Gemutlose psychopaths is to question a diagnosis which puts him in another group, the hysterical psychopaths. But all, Koch, Kraepelin, Schneider, Kahn, Henderson and the rest who have written about psycohapthic states have insisted...", etc[1]. So it has notability, but it's just...disappeared? I assume it's just renamed...I need somebody with more familiarity with the subject of psychopathy specifically :\ HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Did the Lancet say that in 1940, or did a letter-writer say that in the Lancet? — soupvector (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair question, but looks like an article first, and then five issues later a letter with the same title. Regardless, not trying to use it as an RS or anything right now, just asking for help hunting down whatever happened to the idea of Gemutlose Psychopathy, and specifically since its "alt name" is Affectionless Psychopathy, and the "alt name" for RAD these days is Affectionless Psychopathy...are they the same? Or did it get coined as an alt for X, then X was abandoned, then somebody recycled the alt name for Y? Is X Y? Just looking for research help to find the answer, not WP policy on what to do when not knowing such an answer. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Have you tried e-mailing any of the authors on recent papers? I've found some authors to be very willing to answer a question if you tell them you're a volunteer working on a Wikipedia article and want to make sure that you're getting it right. (Other times, I get no response.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't, even though I did find a professor currently at University of Cologne who seemed to perhaps have a grasp of it - so that's a great idea, thanks. It'll at least tell me I'm headed in the right direction - I think I've found a source today saying that it was merged into the modern definition of Antisocial personality disorder but I want to make sure about that. It's a fascinating historical subject, similar to Haltlose (still recognized today) or Hysteria, etc. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

TFA reminder: December 30, Immune system[edit]

Alzheimer's disease[edit]

Alzheimer's disease is a top-rated medicine article, and consistently among our most viewed articles. It has been six months since I gave notice on the talk page of a Featured article review needed (the article is seriously outdated), yet there has been no interest. Unless someone indicates they have plans to update this important article, I will be submitting it to FAR next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

On a quick glance, possibly finding a second and perhaps even third reference for the life expectancy listed in the sidebar; it's one of those very central pieces of information on which we don't want to highlight a number lower/higher than other estimates. Should be easy. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Celmck has agreed to take a look at updating the article. She's very well acquainted with Alzheimer's disease from her day job, but is new to Wikipedia. If anyone else is interested in helping out, feel free to organize at Talk:Alzheimer's disease. Otherwise, if you see Celmck around, say hello and welcome. Ajpolino (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Awesome! There is a list on article talk; I'll be there. (Should we make it Jan MCOTW? I see there are no new nominations, on my part at least because of holiday business ... and I see we did nothing on dexamethasone, in my case, because I don't even know where to start on drug articles ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow. First stumbling block. I navigated my way to our list of templates for welcoming new editors, and find not a single one that is appropriate to this instance :( Going to look for a general (non-medical) welcome template next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes speaking of stumbling blocks, she tried the Wikipedia Adventure but apparently it kept leaving her at dead ends or the little help box would cover the "submit" button. So we're off to a great start... Anyway, if you don't mind I was hoping we could give the article a couple of weeks while Celmck gets her sea legs and takes a look. If she decides it's not for her, or is ready for some more hands, we can make it a collaboration of the month or proceed with the FAR accordingly? Ajpolino (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I wrote my own welcome, and then was dismayed to see her embark on that "adventure", which is not likely to be extremely helpful to someone like her. At some point, we will have to teach her about Diberri and correct citation. I am fine with allowing ALL the time needed; I doubt that anyone else will launch a FAR in the meantime (but I will make sure there is a note on talk to that effect). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Done, [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

African humid period/sickle cell disease take 2[edit]

A while back I asked if this publication justifies mentioning sickle cell disease on African humid period, given that it is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant review. Since then it looks like it's been picked up by other sources, including this review article. Is that indicative enough to discuss a mention? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


Would an article about a physician who promotes fringe medical theories fall within the scope of WP:MED? And also, would a separate section concerning such theories be necessary on that page. I'm specifically looking at Steven Hotze.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, people here are interested in any WP:Biomedical information that appears on Wikipedia, but some fringe stuff can be dealt with entirely at WP:FT/N - and if possible, should be, since editors here are bursting at the seams dealing with COVID-19 content, so it would be bad to have unnecessary distractions here about energy healing, coffee enemas, etc. For the article you mention, I don't think there are any medical claims which require specialist input -- you don't need medical expertise to tell you that no, COVID-19 is not an invention of the "deep state". Alexbrn (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Chinese research on COVID in China[edit]

Interesting article from AP

  • Kang D, Cheng M, McNeil S (30 December 2020). "China clamps down in hidden hunt for coronavirus origins". AP.

which says that all COVID-related Chinese research benefits from the "guidance" of a govt. committee through which it must be cleared prior to publication. Not sure how this might affect our content. I note in Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 we cite PMID 32973152, with 2 (of 3) Chinese academic authors, for saying that it seems the virus did not originate in China after all ... Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As reliable as Chinese sources about woo then, and we should treat them as such. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that might be an overreaction, Roxy. It would be appropriate to use WP:INTEXT attribution in such a situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Update tag on Huntingtons[edit]

Not sure why, but figured I'd drop a note in here as a reminder that Huntington's disease has had an {{update}} tag on it since March. Folks want to make any adjustments necessary? HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this note. Since there are tens of thousands of articles, there are usually hundreds that are tagged as needing an update. Here's the current list, if anyone wants to look for a favorite subject. Some of these are general requests, some are inline (⌘F for the word 'update'), and some requests are themselves outdated (in which case, please remove the tags). Everyone is welcome to help out – even small efforts can make a big difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Article Importance Class Number of tags on the article
2006 dengue outbreak in Pakistan Low Stub 1
2008 Irish pork crisis Low B 6
2009 swine flu pandemic actions concerning pigs Low C 4
2009 swine flu pandemic by country High B 12
2009 swine flu pandemic in Japan Low Start 10
2009 swine flu pandemic in North America Low C 3
2009 swine flu pandemic in South America Low C 5
2009 swine flu pandemic in Spain Mid Start 2
2009 swine flu pandemic in Ukraine Low C 2
2009 swine flu pandemic in the Philippines by region Low C 2
2009 swine flu pandemic in the United Kingdom Low C 4
2009 swine flu pandemic in the United States by state Low C 23
2009 swine flu pandemic vaccine Mid C 9
2013 horse meat scandal Low C 4
2014 Odisha hepatitis outbreak Low C 1
2016–2020 Yemen cholera outbreak Mid B 1
2017 Affordable Care Act replacement proposals Low Start 2
3-Indolepropionic acid Mid Start 2
4-Aminopyridine Mid Start 3
AVN-101 Low Stub 1
Abemaciclib Mid Start 1
Abortion debate Mid B 9
Abortion in the United Kingdom Mid C 6
Abortion in the United States Mid B 8
Acne aestivalis Mid Stub 1
Acoustic shock Mid Start 1
Activated protein C resistance Mid Start 3
Acute medicine Mid Start 2
Acute promyelocytic leukemia Mid C 2
Acute stress disorder Mid Start 3
Adolescent sexuality in the United Kingdom Low Start 1
Age and female fertility Mid Start 1
Akathisia Mid C 3
Alcohol and cancer High C 3
Aldicarb Low Start 3
Alice K. Jacobs (BLP) Low Stub 1
Allostatic load Low Start 5
Alzheimer's disease Top FA 4
Ambrisentan Mid Start 1
AmeriHealth Low C 3
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 Low B 2
America's Healthy Future Act Low C 3
American Health Care Act of 2017 Low C 2
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Low B 3
Ameritox Low Start 4
Amitriptyline Mid B 2
Animal testing on non-human primates Low B 3
Anti-obesity medication Mid B 6
Antidepressant High C 5
Antioxidant Mid C 2
ApoA-1 Milano Low Start 5
Arbovirus Mid C 3
Aripiprazole lauroxil Mid C 4
Aromaticum rosatum Low Stub 3
Artificial kidney Mid Start 2
Artificial organ Mid C 4
Asperger syndrome High B 3
Aspirin High GA 8
Assisted suicide in the United States Low C 3
Astigmatism High C 4
Atezolizumab Mid Start 3
Atherosclerosis High B 5
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder management Mid B 11
Autism spectrum Mid B 6
Avesthagen Low Stub 3
Avid Radiopharmaceuticals Low Start 1
Avita Medical Low C 4
Axial Biotech Low Start 2
Azelastine Mid B 1
BIA 10-2474 Mid Start 3
Baba Raghav Das Medical College Low Stub 3
Barefoot running Mid C 1
Baricitinib Mid Start 3
Batten disease Mid Start 5
BeHealth Low Stub 1
Benznidazole Mid Start 1
Benzoctamine Mid Start 5
Bevacizumab Mid B 7
BioSense Mid Start 2
Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005 Low C 2
Bipolar I disorder Mid C 2
Bipolar disorder Top GA 2
Bipolar disorder in children Mid C 4
Birth control Top GA 1
Body adiposity index Mid Start 1
Bone-anchored hearing aid Mid C 4
Botulinum toxin Mid B 9
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy Mid C 10
Brainstem glioma Mid Start 4
Breast Cancer Campaign Low Start 1
British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic Low C 5
Bupropion Mid FA 3
Burkitt lymphoma Mid C 2
Butylated hydroxytoluene Low Start 10
C-Met inhibitor Mid Start 5
C. Everett Koop Low B 2
COVID-19 drug development Mid B 1
COVID-19 drug repurposing research Mid B 6
COVID-19 hospitals in the United Kingdom Unknown C 5
COVID-19 pandemic Top C 6
COVID-19 pandemic in Alabama Low Start 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Alaska Low Start 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta Low C 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Arkansas Low C 5
COVID-19 pandemic in Asia Mid B 11
COVID-19 pandemic in Australia Low C 8
COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium Low C 8
COVID-19 pandemic in Bosnia and Herzegovina Low C 1
COVID-19 pandemic in Boston Mid C 4
COVID-19 pandemic in Canada Mid B 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Connecticut Low Start 6
COVID-19 pandemic in Cyprus Low Start 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Delaware Low Start 4
COVID-19 pandemic in Delhi Low Start 2
COVID-19 pandemic in England Low C 6
COVID-19 pandemic in Europe Low C 6
COVID-19 pandemic in Georgia (U.S. state) Low C 7
COVID-19 pandemic in Georgia (country) Mid Start 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Greece Low C 8
COVID-19 pandemic in Hawaii Low C 4
COVID-19 pandemic in Honduras Mid Start 4
COVID-19 pandemic in Iceland Mid Start 9
COVID-19 pandemic in Illinois Mid C 6
COVID-19 pandemic in Indiana Low Start 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Iowa Low C 6
COVID-19 pandemic in Italy Mid B 10
COVID-19 pandemic in Kazakhstan Low Start 5
COVID-19 pandemic in Kentucky Low Start 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia Low C 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Liechtenstein Low Start 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Louisiana Low C 5
COVID-19 pandemic in Malta Low C 5
COVID-19 pandemic in Mississippi Low Start 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Missouri Low Start 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Monaco Low Start 1
COVID-19 pandemic in Myanmar Unknown 1
COVID-19 pandemic in Nebraska Low Stub 5
COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal Low C 2
COVID-19 pandemic in New Jersey Low C 3
COVID-19 pandemic in New York (state) Low C 3
COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand Low C 8
COVID-19 pandemic in North America Mid C 1
COVID-19 pandemic in North Carolina Low Start 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Ohio Low C 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Oklahoma Low Start 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Pennsylvania Low Start 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Poland Low C 7
COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec Low C 5
COVID-19 pandemic in Russia Low C 5
COVID-19 pandemic in San Marino Low Start 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland Low C 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Slovakia Low C 5
COVID-19 pandemic in South America Low C 2
COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea Low B 4
COVID-19 pandemic in Sri Lanka Low C 4
COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden Low C 7
COVID-19 pandemic in Tajikistan Low Start 5
COVID-19 pandemic in Tamil Nadu Low C 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Telangana Low Start 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Tennessee Low Start 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Tripura Low Start 1
COVID-19 pandemic in Ukraine Low Start 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Uruguay Mid C 2
COVID-19 pandemic in Venezuela Mid C 6
COVID-19 pandemic in Vermont Low C 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Virginia Low C 3
COVID-19 pandemic in Washington, D.C. Low C 5
COVID-19 pandemic in Western Sahara Low Stub 1
COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China Low C 9
COVID-19 pandemic in the Community of Madrid Low Start 1
COVID-19 pandemic in the Czech Republic Low C 6
COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines Low B 2
COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area Low C 7
COVID-19 pandemic in the United States Virgin Islands Low Stub 1
COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India Low B 3
COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Italy Mid B 1
COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns Low Start 8
Calcitonin gene-related peptide Low C 2
Calcium supplement Mid Start 3
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Low C 1
Cameron Prize for Therapeutics of the University of Edinburgh Low Start 3
Canadian Society of Transplantation Low Stub 9
Cancer vaccine Mid C 3
Cannabis use disorder Mid C 4
Carbidopa/levodopa/entacapone Mid Start 2
Carcinogenic bacteria Mid Start 2
Cardiovascular disease Top B 1
Cefdinir Mid Start 1
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Mid C 1
Central Epidemic Command Center Low Start 2
Cevira Low Start 1
Chemical warfare Low C 6
Christiana Care Health System Low Start 5
Chromium toxicity Low Start 2
Chronic fatigue syndrome Mid B 5
Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome Mid C 2
CimaVax-EGF Low Start 1
Circumcision and HIV Low C 5
Clinical decision support system Low C 10
Cluster 5 Low C 1
Comedo extraction Mid C 1
Compulsive hoarding Low C 4
Concussion High GA 6
Consumer-driven healthcare Low B 7
Contraceptive patch Mid B 5
Contrast-induced nephropathy Low B 4
Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation Mid C 1
Controversies about psychiatry Mid Start 10
Coralmyn Low Stub 1
Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis Low Start 2
Coronary artery bypass surgery High B 10
Coronary artery disease High B 7
Coronavirus disease 2019 Top B 8
Coroner High Start 7
Corticobasal degeneration Mid C 5
Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever Mid C 9
Crisis pregnancy center Low C 10
Cysteamine Mid Start 4
Cystic fibrosis High B 4
Daratumumab Mid Start 1
Decompressive craniectomy Low Start 1
Deep vein thrombosis High GA 2
Delamanid Mid C 1
Dengue fever Top FA 3
Dengue vaccine Mid C 3
Dengvaxia controversy Low Start 1
Department of Health and Social Care Low C 6
Designer drug Mid Start 4
Devra Davis (BLP) Low C 3
Diabetic diet Mid C 2
Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS Mid B 8
Diagnosis-related group Low Start 5
Diaphragm (birth control) Mid B 3
Dieter Koch-Weser Low Start 2
Diltiazem Mid C 2
Discrete trial training Low C 3
Diseases of affluence High Start 4
Dissociative identity disorder Mid B 10
Drug-eluting stent Mid B 2
Duchenne muscular dystrophy Mid C 7
Echinococcosis Mid C 2
Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic Low C 7
Elastography Mid C 2
Elephantiasis nostras Mid Stub 1
Embryo transfer Mid B 2
Emergency medical personnel in the United Kingdom Low C 4
Emergency medical services in Australia Low C 3
Emmetropia Low Start 3
Emtricitabine/tenofovir Mid C 2
Encephalitis lethargica Low C 7
Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis Mid Start 2
Epi Info Low Start 5
Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS High C 3
Epidemiology of leprosy Low C 6
Epidemiology of malnutrition Low C 3
Epidemiology of measles High C 4
Epidemiology of motor vehicle collisions Mid C 2
Epidermolysis bullosa Mid C 4
Epigenetics in stem-cell differentiation Mid Start 4
Epley maneuver Mid C 1
Eradication of infectious diseases Mid C 11
Eravacycline Mid Start 2
Eribulin Mid Start 5
Esophageal stent Low Stub 2
Essential medicines Mid Start 4
Evacuations by the Philippines related to the COVID-19 pandemic Low C 1
Evacuations related to the COVID-19 pandemic Mid List 3
Exercise Cygnus Low Start 4
Family planning High C 8
Female sexual arousal disorder Mid B 6
Fever Top B 9
Flattening the curve Low Start 3
Flexible spending account Low C 6
Flint water crisis Low C 2
Follicle-stimulating hormone insensitivity Low Start 3
Fremanezumab Mid Start 3
Frontotemporal dementia Mid C 2
Gardasil High B 9
Gene therapy Mid B 6
GeneXpert MTB/RIF Low Start 7
George F. Gao (BLP) Low C 2
Geron Corporation Low B 4
Glioma Mid C 8
Global Initiative for Emergency and Essential Surgical Care Low Start 1
Global perceptions of autism Low C 6
Glucose meter Low B 8
Gun violence Mid C 6
HIV vaccine Low Start 3
HIV/AIDS in Asia Mid Start 6
HIV/AIDS in Brazil Low B 1
HIV/AIDS in Europe Mid Start 3
HIV/AIDS in India Mid C 6
Hair cloning Low Start 4
Harm reduction Mid C 6
Health Protection Agency Low Start 3
Health care in Argentina Low Start 2
Health care systems by country Mid C 12
Health in Egypt Low C 2
Health in Gabon Low Start 1
Health in Ivory Coast Low Start 2
Health in Mauritania Low Start 2
Health in the Comoros Low Start 2
Health insurance cooperative Mid Start 1
Health insurance marketplace Low C 12
Healthcare in China Low C 6
Healthcare in Egypt Mid Stub 1
Healthcare in Iran Low B 4
Healthcare in Serbia Low Start 2
Healthcare in the State of Palestine Low C 2
Healthcare reform debate in the United States Mid B 5
Healthcare reform in the United States Mid B 4
Healthy Howard Low Start 1
Hendra virus Low Start 2
Hepatitis A Top B 2
Hepatitis A vaccine Mid Start 3
Hepatitis C Top GA 6
Hepatitis C virus Mid C 5
Heroin High B 10
History and culture of breastfeeding Mid C 4
History of health care reform in the United States Mid C 6
History of medicine in the United States High Start 2
Homans sign Mid Start 2
Hospital-acquired infection High C 4
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Low Start 3
Human microbiome Mid B 4
Human mortality from H5N1 Mid C 3
Human papillomavirus infection High B 5
Huntington's disease High C 1
Hydrogel dressing Low Stub 1
Hyponatremia High B 4
ICHD classification and diagnosis of migraine Mid C 1
Iduronidase Mid Start 2
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education Low C 9
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities Low Start 1
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics Low B 3
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prisons Mid C 1
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on religion Low C 3
Impacted wisdom teeth Mid GA 1
Individually purchased health insurance Low Start 4
Inferior vena cava filter Low B 3
Influenza Top FA 3
Influenza vaccine Mid B 12
Ingrown nail Mid B 4
Insulin (medication) High C 2
International Day of Radiology Unknown Start 1
Ipilimumab Mid Start 4
Isatuximab Mid Start 4
Ixazomib Mid Start 2
Jack Andraka (BLP) Low C 2
John Kanzius Low Start 2
John Pickstone Low Start 2
Joint mobilization Low Start 1
Joseph B. Martin (BLP) Low Start 1
Junior doctor Low Start 1
Kenya Medical Research Institute Low Stub 2
Kidney disease Mid C 1
Lenalidomide Mid C 3
Leuprorelin Mid C 6
Linezolid Mid FA 3
Liquid-based cytology Mid Start 2
List of IARC Group 3 Agents - Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans Low List 1
List of MeSH codes Low List 1
List of MeSH codes (A10) Low List 2
List of MeSH codes (B01) Low List 2
List of antineoplastic agents Low List 1
List of antiviral drugs Mid List 3
List of causes of death by rate Low List 2
List of clinical trial registries Low List 1
List of countries and dependencies by number of physicians Mid List 1
List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate Low List 1
List of countries by total health expenditure per capita Mid List 1
List of countries with universal health care Mid List 12
List of poisonings Low List 2
List of unproven methods against COVID-19 Mid List 9
List of vaccine excipients Mid List 3
Liver cancer Top B 2
Lofthouse of Fleetwood Low Stub 1
Long-acting beta-adrenoceptor agonist Mid Start 3
Long-term effects of cannabis Mid C 5
Lopinavir/ritonavir Mid Start 3
Lorlatinib Mid Start 1
Lumbar spinal stenosis Mid C 3
MEDACT Low Start 3
MEDLINE Low Start 3
MK-2048 Low Stub 5
Macimorelin Mid Stub 1
Major depressive disorder Top FA 2
Management of cerebral palsy Low C 9
Management of heart failure Mid B 1
Management of multiple sclerosis Mid FA 5
Mandibular fracture Mid B 5
Margetuximab Mid Stub 1
Marie Curie (charity) Low Start 4
Massachusetts Medical Society Low Stub 4
Maternal and Newborn Health in Ethiopia Partnership – MaNHEP Low Start 5
Maternal death Mid Start 2
Mebendazole High C 1
Medical Emergency Relief International Low Start 1
Medical cannabis research Mid C 4
Medical certifications for pilots Low C 3
Medical error High B 9
Medical home Mid Start 9
Medical research Mid Start 1
Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate Low C 1
Medicine in the 2010s Low List 2
Melatonin Mid B 5
Mental Health Parity Act Low Start 3
Mental Health Review Tribunal (England and Wales) Low Start 1
Mental disorders diagnosed in childhood Mid C 3
Mercury regulation in the United States Low C 3
Mesangial proliferative glomerulonephritis Mid Stub 2
Mild cognitive impairment Mid C 5
Minaprine Mid Stub 2
Minimed Paradigm Low B 4
Minoo Lenarz Low Start 5
Miscarriage High B 4
Morphine Mid B 18
Multiple chemical sensitivity Low C 7
Multiple sclerosis Top C 7
Multiple sclerosis drug pipeline Low Start 9
Multipurpose Applied Physics Lattice Experiment Low Start 3
Muscular Dystrophy UK Low Stub 3
Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project Low Stub 2
NHS Barnet Low Stub 1
NXL103 Low Stub 2
Naegleriasis Low C 5
Naltrexone/bupropion Mid Start 4
National Council for Human Resource in Health in India Low Start 2
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence High Start 6
National Institute on Drug Abuse Mid C 7
Needle and syringe programmes Mid Start 6
Nepafenac Mid C 2
NeuVax Mid Stub 1
Neural correlates of consciousness Mid C 2
Neuroepidemiology Low C 3
Neuropathic pain Mid B 2
New Orleans Emergency Medical Services Low Start 4
Newark water crisis Low C 1
Nifurtimox Mid C 4
Nilvadipine Low Stub 2
Nir Eyal (bioethicist) (BLP) Low Stub 2
Nitazoxanide High C 4
Non-24-hour sleep–wake disorder Mid C 9
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Unknown C 5
Northwest Biotherapeutics Low Start 5
Nuclear sexing Low Stub 2
Nursing shortage Mid B 5
Opioid Mid B 14
Opioid epidemic in the United States Low C 8
Opioid use disorder High C 3
Oral microbiology Low Start 3
Organ donation High B 12
Organ transplantation in China Low B 2
Osseointegration Mid Start 2
Ossification Low Start 2
Osteoporosis High C 5
Paclitaxel Mid C 7
Pain management in children High C 4
Panobinostat Mid Start 4
Paracetamol poisoning Mid GA 4
Parkinson's disease Top C 4
Pediatric Trials Network Low 1
Pegaptanib Mid Start 2
Pembrolizumab Mid Start 9
Penicillin High C 4
Pentoxifylline Low Start 2
Personality disorder not otherwise specified Mid Start 3
Pharmaceutical industry in India Mid C 5
Pharmacy school Low Start 4
Pheochromocytoma Mid B 5
Philippine government response to the COVID-19 pandemic Low C 3
Physicians for Social Responsibility Low Start 3
Physiological anisocoria Mid Start 2
Pilocarpine Mid C 6
Pneumococcal vaccine Mid C 7
Polio Top FA 1
Poliovirus Mid GA 2
Positive end-expiratory pressure Mid Start 1
Positron emission tomography Mid B 6
Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan Low Start 1
Predimed Low Start 2
Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS Low Start 1
Preterm birth High C 3
Primary immunodeficiency Mid C 2
Primary progressive aphasia Mid C 1
Prostaglandin Low B 2
Psittacosis Low C 3
Psoriatic onychodystrophy Mid Start 1
Pulmonary embolism High B 4
Quarantine Mid C 12
Rabies in Tanzania Unknown Start 3
Radiological Society of North America Low Start 3
Rape Mid B 4
Rectal microbicide Mid C 3
Regulation of electronic cigarettes Low List 10
Relative energy deficiency in sport Low C 1
Remote patient monitoring Low Start 1
Responsible drug use Low Start 4
Restless legs syndrome Mid B 2
Ribavirin Low B 2
Ribociclib Mid Start 2
Riken Unknown 3
Root canal treatment Mid C 6
Rouge Valley Health System Low Stub 2
Ruxolitinib Mid Start 2
SGLT2 inhibitor Mid Start 2
Sabaratnam Arulkumaran (BLP) Low C 1
Sacral nerve stimulator Mid Stub 1
Schizophreniform disorder Mid Start 1
School of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester Low Start 1
Screen for child anxiety related disorders Mid C 4
Search and rescue Low C 10
Second-impact syndrome Mid B 6
Seizure High B 2
Serodiscordant Low Stub 5
Setmelanotide Mid Start 1
Sexually transmitted infection Top B 7
Shared decision-making in medicine Low C 3
Skin and skin structure infection Mid Start 5
Sleepwalking Low C 2
Smoking cessation Mid Start 5
Social care in England Low C 3
Societal and cultural aspects of Tay–Sachs disease Low Start 1
Solve ME/CFS Initiative Low Stub 1
Sore throat Mid Start 1
Spanish National Health System Mid B 1
Specialist registrar Low Start 5
Sports psychiatry Low Start 2
St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine Low C 2
St John Ambulance Western Australia Low Start 1
Statin High B 8
Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom Low 6
Stop TB Partnership Mid Start 1
Strategic National Stockpile Low C 4
Streptococcal pharyngitis High GA 1
Subcortical ischemic depression Mid Start 3
Suicide attempt Low Start 4
Surgeon General of California Low Stub 2
Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion Mid Start 4
Systolic hypertension High C 4
Targeted temperature management Mid C 7
Teenage pregnancy High B 4
Teenage pregnancy in the United States Low Start 3
TennCare Low Start 3
Ternopil National Medical University Low Stub 2
Testosterone (medication) High B 12
Tetraethyllead Mid C 9
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery Low Start 1
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Low C 4
Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh Low List 3
Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania Low C 2
Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines Low Start 1
Tofacitinib Mid Start 4
Toothache Mid GA 3
Toremifene Low C 1
Transplantable organs and tissues Mid Start 1
Trazodone High B 5
Treatment and management of COVID-19 Mid C 4
Treatment of human lice Mid B 5
Tricare Low Start 3
Tricorder X Prize Low Start 1
Triple-negative breast cancer Mid Start 3
Trypanosomiasis Mid Start 4
Tuberculous pericarditis Low Stub 1
Tufts University School of Medicine Low Start 4
U.S. state and local government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic Mid C 4
USNS Mercy (T-AH-19) Low C 3
United States Preventive Services Task Force Low Start 1
Upadacitinib Mid Start 2
Ursula Goodenough (BLP) Low C 1
Vaccine Top B 3
Vaginal flora Mid C 3
Vaginal photoplethysmograph Low Start 1
Valganciclovir Mid C 1
Vanishing twin Mid Start 2
Venous thrombosis Mid C 3
Ventricular assist device Mid Start 5
Vismodegib Mid Start 3
Visual prosthesis Low C 6
Vitamin A deficiency High C 2
Warby Parker Low C 2
WebMD Mid Start 1
Whatman plc Low Start 1
Whirlwind wheelchair Low Stub 1
Williams syndrome Low B 5
Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana Low Start 1
Women's Health (magazine) Low Start 2
Women's Interagency HIV Study Low Start 2
World Vasectomy Day Low Start 1
Years of potential life lost Low C 2
York Region Paramedic Services Low Start 2
Zava Low Start 1
Zika fever Low B 1
Zika virus outbreak timeline Mid List 2
Zoster vaccine Mid Start 2