Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

I've recently got done with reverting a large amount of promotional editing relating to private cord blood banks across several articles, from a couple of single-purpose IP editors. These edits included non-

• Amniotic stem cells
• Cell potency
• Cord blood bank
• Cord blood
• Cordlife
• Cryo-Save
• Developmental verbal dyspraxia
• Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
• Hematopoietic stem cell
• Ideational apraxia
• Matthew Schissler
• Motor neuron diseases
• Neurological disorder
• Prenatal care in the United States
• Regenerative medicine
• Stem cell
• Stem-cell therapy
• Tay–Sachs disease
• Umbilical cord

I think it is very likely that this is undisclosed paid editing. Please consider putting the affected articles on your watchlist to keep an eye out for more promo. -

probably [1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After expanding

Orpha entry, NORD entry, ICD11 classification, OMIM entry, MESH ID, Disease database entry. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is a RfC at

• Talk:Havana syndrome#Request for comment: Scope and sourcing

Which may be of interest to members of this noticeboard as it contains question about the application of MEDRS and invokes an 'Opposing view' for certain syndromes. Bon courage (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - this article seems to have attracted a number of dubious claims / sources. I tried to delete a number of unreliable sources, but I think this article needs some serious editing to make sure statements are backed up by

per the talk page you might want to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is interested:

• [2]

A long list of sources for pollution and neurological conditions. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC);03:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need some help. One of the sources being preferred in Vascular dementia is apparently a 24-year-old newsletter "article" from a local medical club. Just having someone tag or remove the outdated material (twenty-four years old!) would be helpful. There are only five current editors watching this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review is an important and much anticipated "independent review of gender identity services for children and young people" led by Hilary Cass, which was commissioned by NHS England in 2020 and is due to report tomorrow (10th April 2024). It is likely to generate a lot of news coverage, but hopefully also some professional responses too. The Wikipedia article was only created yesterday by User:Void if removed so likely isn't on many watchlists. It would be good if editors here could help over the coming days. Thanks. -- Colin°^Talk 13:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently updating the page

The ICD11 lists it as functional abdominal pain syndrome.[3] However several article discuss renaming it to Centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome.[4]

I'm just wondering what name would be more appropriate here. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since CMAP is mentioned in the first sentence of the lede it's probably not an issue worth worrying about, but

WP:MEDTITLE guidance is always worth a read. CV9933 (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah the main problem I have with the current title is that it doesn't distinguish it as a syndrome or disease and that may lead to confusion. According to

WP:MEDTITLE "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or an historical eponym that has been superseded." and the ICD-11 is recommended for disease names. The only thing is that the ICD-11 uses the term "functional abdominal pain syndrome" but newer literature including the Rome criteria uses the term " Centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome" CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

These types of discussions often lead to those who would propose that when searched, title A produced X hits and title B returned XXX hits therefore title B should be used. But MEDTITLE also tells us that some terminology is in flux and recently proposed names may not yet be widespread in adoption, from which one might infer that there is no rush and doing nothing for now is probably the best course of action. CV9933 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with the current title is that it isn't commonly used in literature and isn't classified under any of the disease databases (for lack of better terms) that we use. WP:MEDTITTLE also specifies that "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name" which isn't true for Chronic functional abdominal pain. I think it would make more sense to rename it to "functional abdominal pain syndrome" as that seems to be the more recognized term and is what's used by the ICD-11 and because as you mentioned proposed names might not be widespread. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could be bold and just change it with your rationale in the edit summary, or propose a move on the article talk page. If the latter, then use it as an opportunity to gain consensus to update the title to CAMPS. CV9933 (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! I’ll change it tonight when I have the time to make sure all the names match. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts, inline tags, etc.

I believe this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1212897332

and the subsequent comments,e.g.,

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=prev&oldid=1213611691

warrant more discussion. I don't have time to come back to it yet, but perhaps others will do. Aside, I don't think the issue "How do we welcome new medical editors?" has been completely resolved. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC); 13:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and continued from the closed thread above:

How do we welcome new editors? There's an essay (much of which I wrote): WP:Encourage the newcomers. It includes all the empirical evidence I could find on the question (if you find more, please add it). On account of said evidence, I think adding T209797 to Huggle might also be pretty effective. HLHJ (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HLHJ. That’s a great essay. I’m especially amazed by the graphs, for example:

I agree with you that adding the { { citation needed } } feature to Huggle may help. It will need other features like { { medref inline } } as welll. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think other tags are a good idea, too; I commented on T209797 to suggest a general tool for adding inline point & span tags. Anyone can add a comment or token; adding specific ideas about use cases might be quite useful.

I didn't actually make the graphs myself! It might be possible to remake that >decade-old graph live via Wikidata now. HLHJ (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep the graph needs update. The trend seemed to indicate that “Other bots” were becoming the major problem (not Huggle) in 2011? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Huggle is the problem; semi-automated editing countered an existential threat. Cluebot is, I think, also part of the solution; the third of those 2011 new users who were reverted by Cluebot were probably almost all vandals. Because the evidence says "inline-tagged new editors stay, reverted new editors leave", I think the problem is that it's now hard to inline-tag noob edits. This is not an intrinsic problem. It's hard to imagine a scenario where newcomers don't need semiautomated scrutiny. It's easy to imagine an interface where adding "cn" to a new edit is a single click.

The longstanding lack of semiautomated tagging capabilities is influencing our culture. Pre-2007, citation-needed tagging was very common. It was policy to tag only stuff you thought was unverifiable, and delete it only after giving others a chance to verify it (BLP excepted, it's still policy). Readers knew to distrust anything with a [[citation needed]] tag; it was part of pop culture.

Now, an increasing number of editors think they are expected to revert all probably-true but unsourced content (even on medieval Japanese furniture). It's rare to tag it first or talk to the contributing editor afterwards. I've been working on an explanatory template, contribs welcome.

The current interface marks new editors as pass/fail, and never as "imperfect, but means well and should improve". Whether a new editor will stay depends mostly on the fate of their first three or four edits. It's more a learning cliff than a learning curve. HLHJ (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a debate over medical wording over at Talk:Death from laughter#"atonia" - link is broken, and word meaning?. Thought members of this WikiProject might be interested in this discussion, as I don't know how to rephrase the sentence to be clearer to the reader. – GnocchiFan (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope this is the right venue for this feedback. I have chronic medical problems that were slowly destroying my life, and none of my doctors could figure out what was going on or what to do about it. I have now identified some of my conditions and found treatments that help a great deal, and my doctors and I are working to understand my illness more clearly and improve my symptoms further. I finally get to start living a real life again, and I couldn't have done it without the tireless efforts of WikiProject Medicine contributors. I will be grateful forever, please keep up the great work. 174.21.188.119 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reverted some major changes to trodusquemine that a new editor made to this article because I thought that they were one-sided. Another editor has now restored those changes. I notice that there seems to be a history of conflict of interest problems and sockpuppetry associated with the article and that the most recent editor's username matches the last name of the lead author of newly added references. So maybe some more experienced editors can have a look? Thank you. Reba16 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolled back, and COI Welcome template added to ZASLOFF's talk page, given that Zasloff is an author of the cited article(s). The revision was also much worse than the original. Klbrain (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]