Talk:Caffeine-induced anxiety disorder

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CLucy1994, Mbozsik, RobDragani, Ksannch.

Above undated message substituted from

A very well written article, however there are some changes that I could suggest. For the receptors section, I would recommend restructuring this section to allow for a better grasp of the reader. By this I mean that when reading that section, there were a significant amount of receptor naming and terms being thrown around, so it was easy to get lost while reading it. One other thing besides this, I reccommend inputing the structure of caffeine section under your Caffeine absorption and excretion section. This is because it is just one sentence and seems out of place in the entire article.

Besides this, extremely well written with a great amount of detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E torres97 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RedvelvetpoptartsRedvelvetpoptarts (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intro:

1. “For these people, they are more prone” – Double statement of the subject of the sentence.
2. “non-trivial amounts of caffeine” – How much is a non-trivial amount? Vague. Maybe somehow combine with the sentence that states 200mg?
3. “according to certain studies” – What studies?
4. Overall the intro feels a bit choppy and repetitive. In the first 9 sentences, you use the word anxiety 11 times, and the word caffeine 10 times.

Diagnostic Criteria:

1. First two sentences are repetitive and very confusing… I’m not really sure what you’re trying to sa2. y here.
2. What is DSM-5, even though you link to it you should still give a short explanation of what it is.
3. Link to adenosine receptors
4. 2nd paragraph is clearly written and very informative.

Diagnostic features

• What is section A?

Prevalence

• .002% of what population?

Structure of Caffeine

• This section feels too brief to be it’s own heading. It would fit very well in the next section.

Absorbtion and excretion

• Good.

Metabolism

• What is the significance/importance for these compounds? How does the body actually use or get rid of them?
• This could also probably be combined with the last section.

Note:

These last three sections, structure, absorbtion and excretion, and metabolism all seem to be more relevant in a page about caffeine. They don’t seem to be relevant to your topic. This could be remedied by removing them or relating them back to your topic. They also seem as though they would work as one section rather than three.

Mechanism of Caffeine action

• How does the concentration play a role in the action of the molecule?
• Are each of the subheadings theories behind what causes caffeine induced anxiety? You could do a little more to place your subheadings in context.

Mobilization of intracellular calcium

• I’m not sure that your general audience will understand what is being said here.
• This section also feels like it could be explained a little more clearly. The sentences are very dense and choppy.

Inhibition of phosphodiesterases

• Again, I’m not sure your general reader will understand this. Take some more time to explain in layman’s terms.

Antagonism of Adenosine Receptors

• “Adenosine is a normal neuromodulator that activates adenosine receptors that are g-protein coupled” – Take some time to explain what this means for the cell in a way that a layman can understand it.
• Paragraphs three and four seem to go into a lot of unnecessary detail. All of that information about the receptors isn’t helpful unless you connect it all to your disorder. Try answering these questions: What receptor is caffeine inhibiting? What does this receptor normally do? How does this inhibition cause anxiety?

Other actions of caffeine

• Again, how does this relate to anxiety and what does this mean for the overall physiological effect (in a way the layman can understand it)?

Source Review

• I looked over your number one source, “Brewing Trouble”. It is indeed a secondary source. The information in the Wikipedia article next to the in text citation is backed up by the article. However, this source also talks about possible treatments for caffeine induced anxiety. This is something not covered in your Wikipedia article that would be very relevant and important.

Closing thoughts:

• I’m still not sure after reading this how caffeine causes anxiety. You seemed to lose track of the purpose of the page and ended up going more into details about caffeine. Try limiting the scope of what you talk about caffeine-wise to the ways in which it can cause anxiety.

Overall interesting article and pretty well written, especially the opening paragraph. You all do a good job of explaining things so that the general audience would understand what caffeine-induced anxiety disorder is right off the bat. However, I would clarify the amount of caffeine it takes to induce anxiety in a patient. -Theresa Santos TSantos (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The writing of the article is well-done. However, in my opinion, there are a few things seem off. First, there is no need for the "Structure of Caffeine" part, you can just put it at the begining of the article, also a link to the word "caffeine" may be helpful for the audience if they want more information about caffeine. Second, the "Metabolism" and "Mechanism of Caffeine Action" part are well-described in the "Caffein" article, and don't really seem to fit the topic. Third, there are a lot of scientific details yet not all of them are linked successfully to the article. Lastly, though I said the writing is done nicely, the article isn't exactly satisfiable. The article gives a clear understanding how caffeine works in the body (like stating before, it looks like you guys are writing about caffeine itself) yet I am still confused about how caffeine causes anxiety. You guys may want to dig deeper into that aspect to keep the article on track.

Also, there is an error in Reference #5.

I apologize if there is any inconvenience in my feedback,

Hphan1719 (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Picture

Clearly, you have a lot of material here. There's a ton of info to work with on this topic and it seems like you've compiled pretty much all the info you need to support a good paper. HOWEVER, as voiced by Huy and Chris above, this info has not been organized into an article that makes me feel that I better understand caffeine-induced anxiety disorder.

• Big problem I saw with many sections is quoting way too often. As far as I know, we shouldn't be quoting pretty much anything, unless it's a quote by a person, something along the lines of "Four score and seven years ago" - not "the heritability of caffeine-related traits range between 0.36 and 0.58". These quotations have ESSENTIAL info that should be kept in the article, however, they should be paraphrased and better integrated into the text.
• Grammar was poor in some places. I didn't edit everything I found, mostly for fear of changing your intended meaning. A solid review on your own time of the article will solve most of these problems. Don't capitalize caffeine unless it's at the beginning of a sentence. I fixed some of those little grammar mistakes throughout.
• Don't worry about making this article read like an essay. The goal is concision. The article should read more like a Hemingway novel - not something you would find in a stream-of-consciousness novel.
• Avoid using the words "could", "would", and "should" when stating known facts or experimental results about caffeine. These things are already known or have been shown in experimental results; this language of "could, would, should" sounds too much like you are writing a hypothesis and not an encyclopedia article.

Introduction

• "...shown to increase the likelihood for anxiety and panic attacks in a population..." WHAT population? USA? China? Orphaned platypodes? Additionally, the article states, "according to certain studies"...according to WHAT studies? This would be a good place to cite.

DSM-5 Classification

Diagnostic Criteria

• Second sentence is awkward. I'd suggest making this into two separate sentences, perhaps by separating the idea between the phrase "intoxicating substance" and "which for caffeine induced..."
• Sentence "...thereby distinguishing the relationship between chemical agent and clinical effect..." This is also pretty awkward and I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. Perhaps expand this into two solid, clearer sentences.

Diagnostic Features

• First 2 sentences are redundant. Eliminate one or join them together into a shorter, more concise idea.
• Last sentence, you reference "section A". What IS section A? This is something the reader probably isn't going to know off the top of their heads or from the information presented prior in your article. Cut out this reference to section A or give a little blurb on what exactly section A is!

Prevalence

• This section is not nearly large enough to be its own sub-heading. Should be integrated elsewhere if not expanded.
• "...general population data shows a 0.002% prevalence over a year long period..." Again, WHAT population? And a prevalence of WHAT (even though it should be obvious)?

Structure of Caffeine

• Also not big enough to be its own section. As Huy said, just link the text to the caffeine article. I would suggest just completely cutting this subsection, but you can still keep the picture of caffeine in!

Caffeine Absorption and Secretion

• Pretty good. Needs to be a little more concise still.

Metabolism

• Also pretty good. Still, concision is the answer.

Mechanism of Caffeine Action

• Eliminate the first sentence in the intro of this section, it appears unnecessary.

Mobilization of Intracellular Calcium

• Second sentence implies that muscle contractions CAUSE calcium to enter the muscle cell. As far as I know, this is incorrect. I would suggest rephrasing this statement to something more like, "Caffeine allows the calcium to enter the muscle cell more readily", if that is indeed the point you are trying to make

Inhibition of Phosphodiesterases

• Second sentence, latter part is awkward, the part with "beginning with..."

Antagonism of Adenosine Receptors

• 3rd paragraph, "Within the striatum, part of the basal ganglia, activation of..." - Eliminate "part of the basal ganglia". This doesn't seem pertinent to the statement of the sentence. If it is pertinent, you might just link "striatum" to its Wikipedia article.

Other Actions of Caffeine

• Good stuff

Genetics of Caffeine Consumption

• Again, stop quoting so much! The info is great, it just shouldn't be presented as a direct quote.
• Third paragraph: "A few studies have been done on twins..." - Suggest changing to "Studies with twins have shown that..."

Behavioral Effects

• Quoting problem again

Populations Most Susceptible

• Quoting still

Long-term Health Effects

• Needs more new info; seems like it's just a restatement of things previously covered in the article.

Treatment

• Seems good.

Reference #12, "Early caffeine exposure: Transient and long-term consequences on brain excitability"

• "Early caffeine exposure: Transient and long-term consequences on brain excitability". This is a solid secondary source that effectively compiles original research into one manageable source. Pan & Chen's 2007 experiment (I'm looking through the list) showed that caffeine induced hyperalgesia, which could very likely promote anxiety. This is assuming that increased pain is conducive to anxiety. However, this same study states that "low anxiety" was observed. I don't quite know what to take of that, but perhaps some studies have shown that caffeine actually reduces anxiety? You may also want to address the problems of caffeine withdrawal in producing anxiety whereby the withdrawal and not the introduction of caffeine causes anxiety. Overall, a solid source with a ton of info that would probably take a full semester to read entirely.

Hope this helps and doesn't sound too harsh. Good luck with grading and fixing up the article into a solid Wikipedia contribution. Danielggpeters (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Dan Peters, BIOL 3501 Marquette[reply]

Overall I think this was a very well thought out article but it needs to be more concise. There are some areas within the article that go into too much detail and it is not necessary. An example of this is when the structure of caffeine is explained. I think focusing more on the disorder specifically would help the article. I agree with some of the other reviews in that the prevalence section should be removed all together or moved to a different section. This section does not add much to the article and it could confuse the readers. Overall I think a lot of good material was found, but it just needs to be more concise. Sydneym21 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work so far! I think one area that can definitely be improved on is conciseness and clarity. Many times the information was repeated from an earlier section, which is good in terms of reinforcement, but since this isn't a very in-depth/complex disorder it can just seem repetitive. In terms of each section, I think some sections can be combined, like "Metabolism" also containing "Structure" and "Absorption/Secretion" instead of being divided. The mechanism section is detailed and well done! Bradleyjude1313 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall there is a lot of information in this article, and although I did not go into much depth on your sources, they look credible and correctly cited. I think the introduction definitely needs some work. First of all, it is very wordy and talks more about caffeine than it does the actual disorder (which is what the intro should probably be more about). The caffeine information in the intro can be placed around the caffeine structure area for that section was only one sentence. Giving information and background on caffeine is good, but the intro probably is not the best place for it. Also, I felt that not enough words were linked. I think some not very science knowledgeable people would not know what many of the un-linked words were. I suggest revisiting the article to link some more terms. Overall it was a great amount of information, but it needs a little work on structure, organization, and it may nee to be more concise. Overall good job though!

Jmankow (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it was a well written draft. I really liked that you included the structure of caffeine and a picture to illustrate to the reader more information. I also liked the information provided for the digestion section. I would suggest there to be more links to certain terms that were mentioned. There were a lot of scientific terms that were left unexplained that could go over the general audience's head. There were a few sentences that lead to confusion and the first three sentences were redundant. Add a little bit more about the anxiety aspect of this such as does caffeine lead to life-term anxiety or would not drinking caffeine help. --BCBF13 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)BCBF13[reply]

I think that this article is very well written, and there is not a lot that I could say that would change it for the better, however I would say that the article could use some more links in various words that might seem too complex or scientific. According to an earlier secondary review, they said that the structure of caffeine part was unnecessary, however I disagree. While the formatting could maybe be changed like they said, I think that the importance of mentioning how caffeine can pass through the membranes and blood brain barrier is very important for understanding the global effects of this drug on the body. Another thing, and it might be just aesthetic, but the introductory paragraph section is very long, so potentially you could consider shortening it? G.T.L.Neuro (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CameronLangeMU (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Overall, this article about caffeine induced anxiety disorder was very well written with only a few issues that I would recommend to fix. To begin with, reference 6, is either incomplete, or did not have enough information cited within the reference itself. Looking further into this reference, I found that there is an in depth amount of information into this topic in this source. However, unless I pay to access this article, I could not further acquire more information about it other than the abstracts of each chapter in which your specific topic is referencing.[reply]

As for the the structure of the molecule, there is a picture and a brief statement, but i feel it may be important to describe the molecule in greater detail, and/or explaining any important bonds in between the the molecule that may be significant.

For the mechanism caffeine action section of the article, I enjoyed that fact that you broke it up into sections, to better segregate the different components. However, there were many receptors that were referenced, a lot that we did not discuss in class. I would recommend possibly explaining some of the key receptors that are important in the process of this disorder.

Lastly, I would recommend going into the treatment options more in depth. Explaining what certain drugs will do in order to either treat or reduce the side affects of the drug, will better help the reading comprehend how these will affect someone with this disorder.CameronLangeMU (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making some minor edits to help us along with our article. We're looking over and have made further edits to ensure clarity for the reader.

The introduction was taken from the previously written wiki article, and we made changes in order to make the information a lot more clear.

All of the points that you addressed about the DSM-5 were clarified. Some of the grammar was changed in order to make this section a lot less awkward, and the reference to "section A" was removed.

We also condensed all of the information about caffeine into one section in order to make it a more effective section.

We took into account your comments on the mechanism of caffeine and made some changes to make it a lot more clear and less choppy.

For the rest of the article, we worked to decrease the amount of quoting and rewrite some of the information in our own words that would be informational and easy to understand in layman's terms.

Caffeine-Induced Anxiety Disorder Group

CLucy1994 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We edited the introduction of the article to be more clear. However, we feel that using "anxiety" and "caffeine" in an article about caffeine-induced anxiety is appropriate, and will therefore be leaving the wording.

We added a short definition of the DSM-5 in the Diagnostic criteria section to help out the layman reader in understanding the significance of the section. We also removed the reference to "section A," because it was leftover from a previous edit and wasn't removed until now.

We combined a few sections for clarity and better structure of the articles, per your suggestion. We also added more references back to the disorder itself in order to keep the article focused.

We also clarified throughout the multiple sections of the mechanism of caffeine action. Some of the detail that you found to be unnecessary we decided to keep. When you reviewed our article, some of the later sections had yet to be live on the wiki page, and therefore there is a lot more clarification about the disorder itself later on.

Thanks for all of your input. We really appreciate all of your hard work in finding specific points throughout the article to fix and help guide us in making the article better.

Caffeine-induced Anxiety Disorder Group

CLucy1994 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to remove the quotes from the last four sections and replace them with a summary of the research. I'll also be improving the sourcing. Further, the "long term health effects" section discusses the health effects of caffeine, not caffeine-induced anxiety disorder's long-term health effects.

Nategoss (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under Treatment, there is a claim that anti-anxiety medication such as alprazolam can "introduce further problems by increasing rates of cytotoxicity and cell death by necrosis". This claim seems to be based on an in vitro study investigating the effects of alprazolam + caffeine in cancerous immortal cell lines in vitro. Although the data strongly suggests that both alprazolam and alprazolam + caffeine trigger cell necrosis in vitro in these cells, clinically significant harmful cell necrosis or acute toxicity in humans has not been observed and alprazolam has been shown to be safe and effective for the short-term treatment of anxiety disorders. There haven't been any reports concerning harmful alprazolam-caffeine interactions besides anxiety.

A different study found that midazolam in vivo produced similar cytotoxic effects in cancer cells when administered neuraxially.

In the alprazolam-caffeine experiment, immortal cell lines were treated with alprazolam and caffeine for 72 hours and and analyzed. Caffeine was observed to be non-toxic and necrosis of cells exposed to alprazolam wasn't observed until day 3. Caffeine did significantly increase the cytotoxic effects of alprazolam. However, I don't know to what extent these conditions would actually occur in vivo.

The paper proposed that the mechanism for this cell necrosis was via activation of a "peripheral benzodiazepine receptor (PBR)". The so called PBR has now been identified as a translocator protein (TSPO). This protein is not fully understood but the expression of TSPO in cells has been linked to inflammation, cancer, brain injury, neurodegeneration, and ischemia-reperfusion injury. This suggests that cells expressing TSPO may be pathological in nature and it is possible that benzodiazepines are selectively binding to proteins on inflamed cells and cancer cells triggering apoptosis. This is consistent with the results of the experiments which found that benzodiazepines caused cancerous cells to die and it is also consistent with the fact that benzodiazepines have not been observed to be acutely toxic at therapeutic doses.

In conclusion, there seems to be no strong evidence to support the claim that combining benzodiazepines and caffeine in normal amounts is cytotoxic or causes harmful cell death. This also negates the claim that benzodiazepines are automatically ruled out as a treatment / management for caffeine-induced anxiety disorder / caffeine-induced panic attacks. Since no harmful interactions involving caffeine and benzodiazepines have been proven to exist, anti-anxiety medication can likely be safely used short-term for caffeine-induced anxiety disorder / panic attacks.

However, it is worth exploring in greater detail the anxiogenic properties of caffeine and its effect on individuals with anxiety disorders who may or may not be receiving treatment with benzodiazepines or other medications.

TLDR: the evidence for alprazolam-caffeine interactions causing significant harmful cell death in humans is very weak as the original experiment only said that "alprazolam and caffeine together produce severe cytotoxicity in human cell lines" (cancerous cells in vitro). Also the duration of exposure to drugs was a bit much. Alprazolam has been shown to be relatively non-toxic for almost 50 years so this cell death is likely negligible and may be limited to inflamed, cancerous, and damaged cells. More research is needed.

Lavendar Vallery (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]