| Revision as of 21:12, 19 April 2024 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,973 edits →Removal of precision medicine approaches from Research directions: agree← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:30, 7 December 2024 edit undoDriesmand1 (talk | contribs)43 edits Update Human Anatomy Lecture assignment detailsTag: dashboard.wikiedu.org [2.3] |
| (29 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
| Line 78: |
Line 78: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 6== |
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Perception== |
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Allen_University/English_102_Section_6_(Spring_2024) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-01-09 | end_date = 2024-05-03 }} |
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Perception_(Spring_2024) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2024-01-22 | end_date = 2024-05-11 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 17:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello! I previously edited this article for a course (also affiliated with Wiki Education) and have been keeping tabs on it as much as I could. At the time, I learned that we should avoid using documents such as the DSM to avoid copyright strikes. I noticed that after some edits to this article, the DSM itself is directly cited over a scientific review article discussing it (specifically in the Diagnosis (criteria) section). I wanted to ask about whether we could remove it, or if my understanding was incorrect. I am still learning so I hope this question isn't too bothersome! Thank you in advance! ] (]) 19:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Update this page to keep up with current Research == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Source - Life span == |
|
I have been looking at "Management" section of this article and it seems to need some help keeping up with current research of what treatment options are available whether they are options such as medications, caregiving options, etc. ] (]) 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broken link. ] (]) 23:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
== update section with current == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks for reporting, I've fixed it by replacing the original reference with some newer and more precise ones. ] (]) 22:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
I found an article that explains what is talked about in the late onset section. Do you think this article would work as a medical article? |
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
Andrade-Guerrero, J., Santiago-Balmaseda, A., Jeronimo-Aguilar, P., Vargas-Rodríguez, I., Cadena-Suárez, A. R., Sánchez-Garibay, C., Pozo-Molina, G., Méndez-Catalá, C. F., Cardenas-Aguayo, M. D., Diaz-Cintra, S., Pacheco-Herrero, M., Luna-Muñoz, J., & Soto-Rojas, L. O. (2023). Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Overview of Its Genetics. ''International journal of molecular sciences'', ''24''(4), 3754. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24043754</nowiki> ] (]) 21:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21#Brain rot}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
:I would not know why the Andrade-Guerrero et al (2023) article would not "work as a medical article." The opening box on this Talk page says: guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. I read the 2023 review and am actively involved with a forum for Alzheimer's patients and Carers. On this forum we DO discuss the latest research, and as one of the active members (and chemistry PhD) I can say that the 2023 review is of high quality. ] (]) 21:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== this can only take place after death. == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is not true. Brain biopsy is done in living patients and provides tissue for biopsy. Although Brian biopsies are never done to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease, they are done for tumors and infections in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. This should be changed to reflect the possibility of tissue diagnosis in living patients. ] (]) 09:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I believe that more tissue is needed than would be supplied by a biopsy. |
|
|
:The reference that was on that sentence didn't seem to mention post mortem examination, but two papers cited later in the article (both of which are quite recent, 2020) clearly state that definitive or gold-standard diagnosis is post mortem, so I have moved those citations to this sentence. ] (]) 14:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
==Wiki Education assignment: Perception== |
|
| ⚫ |
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Perception_(Spring_2024) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-01-22 | end_date = 2024-05-06 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Amyloid beta theory under scrutiny == |
| ⚫ |
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 00:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should the article be updated to reflect the doubts about the amyloid beta plaque theory? The paper on which that theory is based is under investigation for fraud now. Source: |
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu== |
|
|
|
https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease ] (]) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_SP24_-_Sect_201_-_Thu_(Spring) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-03-04 | end_date = 2024-05-04 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:As described in ], the consensus seems to be that the alleged manipulation would not invalidate most of the research into the amyloid hypothesis. But since the report and the consequences have garnered significant attention from researchers as well as the general public, it would perhaps be a good improvement to mention it briefly in the ]. What do you think @]? (pinging you since you wrote most of the content covering this investigation). ] (]) 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 23:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
::Thanks for the ping ... I agree with Bendeguz Acs that the sources indicate the alleged manipulation has little impact on most research, hence is not worthy of mention in the main article. As to whether it warrants a mention in the History section, my approach (particularly for a former ]) is to include only that which has been covered by secondary overall literature reviews -- the Lesne/Ashe issue has not risen to that level yet. Since this article has fallen from FA status, I won't strenuously object if it is added to History, but the standard I prefer is to base History on mention in overall literature reviews of the condition. ] (]) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''Update''': {{u|Bendegúz Ács}} considering this (and the at ]), it seems there is some disagreement as to whether the findings cast doubt upon the prevailing amyloid hypothesis. Considering this is the most highly cited paper ever retracted, perhaps a one- or two- sentence summary at ] is warranted? I'm out of time for today, and although I did (partially) update Lesné, I haven't yet updated ], in case you have time to work there -- I am going to be fairly busy through Friday. Thanks for keeping up with this! I still don't find it necessary to make changes to this article, as we don't overplay the amyloid hypothesis here, and it is covered in detail at the Biochemistry of article. ] (]) 02:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Removal of precision medicine approaches from Research directions == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I've also been busy, but I saw you made edits in both of those pages, I've reviewed them and they're great! I agree that ] is a good place to mention the retraction now. ] (]) 09:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
Regarding , I would like to ask for clarification on the following questions: |
|
|
* How is ] applicable here? |
|
|
* Do we need ] for stating what research is being conducted? |
|
|
* Why are the following references not ]? <ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Behl |first1=Tapan |last2=Kaur |first2=Ishnoor |last3=Sehgal |first3=Aayush |last4=Singh |first4=Sukhbir |last5=Albarrati |first5=Ali |last6=Albratty |first6=Mohammed |last7=Najmi |first7=Asim |last8=Meraya |first8=Abdulkarim M. |last9=Bungau |first9=Simona |date=September 2022 |title=The road to precision medicine: Eliminating the "One Size Fits All" approach in Alzheimer's disease |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35780617/ |journal=Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie |volume=153 |pages=113337 |doi=10.1016/j.biopha.2022.113337 |issn=1950-6007 |pmid=35780617}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Arafah |first1=Azher |last2=Khatoon |first2=Saima |last3=Rasool |first3=Iyman |last4=Khan |first4=Andleeb |last5=Rather |first5=Mashoque Ahmad |last6=Abujabal |first6=Khaled Abdullah |last7=Faqih |first7=Yazid Abdullilah Hassan |last8=Rashid |first8=Hina |last9=Rashid |first9=Shahzada Mudasir |last10=Bilal Ahmad |first10=Sheikh |last11=Alexiou |first11=Athanasios |last12=Rehman |first12=Muneeb U. |date=2023-01-25 |title=The Future of Precision Medicine in the Cure of Alzheimer's Disease |journal=Biomedicines |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=335 |doi=10.3390/biomedicines11020335 |doi-access=free |issn=2227-9059 |pmc=9953731 |pmid=36830872}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pauwels |first1=Ernest K. J. |last2=Boer |first2=Gerard J. |date=2024-03-12 |title=Alzheimer's Disease: A Suitable Case for Treatment with Precision Medicine? |journal=Medical Principles and Practice: International Journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre |doi=10.1159/000538251 |issn=1423-0151 |pmid=38471490|doi-access=free }}</ref> |
|
|
* Why would the content on machine learning algorithms be kept if the content on precision medicine is not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
==Wiki Education assignment: Human Anatomy Lecture== |
|
@] I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on these questions. ] (]) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Dayton/Human_Anatomy_Lecture_(Fall_2024) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2024-08-19 | end_date = 2024-12-06 }} |
|
: I agree with removal of the section as ], ] and ] (also see ] recommendation). At every FA I've written, I have found it possible to cite the "Research directions" section to broad secondary reviews ''about research directions'' (see for example ] -- that is, not about the researched issue per se); we have to take care these sections not become trivia or promotional pushes of every bit of research being conducted, rather stay focused on what literature reviews ''indicate specifically'' are the important research directions. Exceptions have been made in the past for highly publicized new or research findings based on large and well-controlled samples that got pushed in broadsheet news, but adding even those makes me uncomfortable (] and ]). ] (]) 21:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 04:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
Hello! I previously edited this article for a course (also affiliated with Wiki Education) and have been keeping tabs on it as much as I could. At the time, I learned that we should avoid using documents such as the DSM to avoid copyright strikes. I noticed that after some edits to this article, the DSM itself is directly cited over a scientific review article discussing it (specifically in the Diagnosis (criteria) section). I wanted to ask about whether we could remove it, or if my understanding was incorrect. I am still learning so I hope this question isn't too bothersome! Thank you in advance! Bharatss-SB (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
This audio file was created from a revision of this page dated 12 September 2008 (2008-09-12), and does not reflect subsequent edits.(Audio help · More spoken articles)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eg2619 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: PowdersPOWPOW.
The redirect Brain rot has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21 § Brain rot until a consensus is reached. Based5290 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)