| Revision as of 22:06, 9 May 2024 editBendegúz Ács (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users688 edits →Source - Life span: ReplyTag: Reply← 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] |
| (19 intermediate revisions by 9 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 ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Amyloid beta theory under scrutiny == |
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
: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) |
|
|
|
https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease ] (]) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
== this can only take place after death. == |
|
|
|
::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) |
|
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'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) |
|
: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== |
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Human Anatomy Lecture== |
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Perception_(Spring_2024) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2024-01-22 | end_date = 2024-05-06 }} |
|
{{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 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 16:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 04:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of precision medicine approaches from Research directions == |
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
@] I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on these questions. ] (]) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 20:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: 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) |
|
|
::Thanks for replying! It makes sense for the most part, but I would like to point out that there is a really fine line between "broad secondary reviews about research directions" and ones "about the researched issue per se" in this case, as precision medicine is quite a broad area itself. Similarly, it is challenging to keep the balance between ] and up-to-date content (]), and I would argue that mentioning precision medicine would greatly improve the latter aspect of the article, since it seems to me that currently, precision medicine is the only at least somewhat promising research area. |
|
|
::I have 2 followup questions: |
|
|
::* Do you know any secondary reviews about research directions that are also recent? What do you think about this one? |
|
|
::* Based on this, should the content on the machine learning algorithms be removed as well? |
|
|
::] (]) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree with Sandy's skeptical assessment. "Precision" medicine is more generally "personalized" medicine which has been ongoing in assessment of AD for decades with disappointingly little progress of use to patients and their families. In your 3 sources, is there anything that can be considered on the edge a research breakthrough for diagnostic or treatment procedures? No. The sources seemed cherry-picked and were used in the original sentence to project a cure, which we all hope would occur, but does not exist. |
|
|
::: MEDORG review on personalized medicine points out that it "is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice." Research showing progress and refinement of these methods would justify a sentence, but I am unaware of such a source. |
|
|
:::The machine learning report was a real-world test on electronic records for predicting AD risk, published by a multicenter expert team. It seems reasonable to include mention of a rapidly-developing technology to improve AD risk assessment. ] (]) 22:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If this is true "assessment of AD for decades with disappointingly little progress", we should definitely include it in the article, but what I've seen in the original 5 sources is that it's still very much being researched now and there are even some good preliminary results, in particular this pilot trial: <ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Toups |first1=Kat |last2=Hathaway |first2=Ann |last3=Gordon |first3=Deborah |last4=Chung |first4=Henrianna |last5=Raji |first5=Cyrus |last6=Boyd |first6=Alan |last7=Hill |first7=Benjamin D. |last8=Hausman-Cohen |first8=Sharon |last9=Attarha |first9=Mouna |last10=Chwa |first10=Won Jong |last11=Jarrett |first11=Michael |last12=Bredesen |first12=Dale E. |date=2022 |title=Precision Medicine Approach to Alzheimer's Disease: Successful Pilot Project |journal=Journal of Alzheimer's Disease: JAD |volume=88 |issue=4 |pages=1411–1421 |doi=10.3233/JAD-215707 |issn=1875-8908 |pmc=9484109 |pmid=35811518}}</ref>. |
|
|
::::Here's a quote on which I would base this content: "The future of PM in AD is promising, as research continues to identify new biomarkers and targeted therapies.", from <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>. |
|
|
::::"The sources seemed cherry-picked": I tried to look for relatively recent reviews on Alzheimer's research, and I found this one: , which also mentions precision medicine. Please let me know if you have a better one that's also recent - the one you linked is not within 5 years and this is a heavily researched area so ] definitely applies. |
|
|
::::As for calling it "a cure", we can refine the sentence, but I think it would be important to include it in some way. I would also consider precision medicine a "rapidly-developing technology", just like machine learning-based prediction. |
|
|
::::] (]) 19:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@]; I remembered that to ] when editing the articles. I’m so glad that you didn’t follow my advice closely and edit ] bold ] I did :-) <well actually I just wanted to add a link, but I don’t know why it became “bold” at the end ... anyway> |
|
|
:::::Sorry for having set those not-so-examplary examples, but as you can see, I’ve tried my best ... and IMO the so-called “walled garden” (as someone had told me) is probably becoming a better place .. slowly .. |
|
|
:::::I enjoyed reading and the other links that you posted. And your edit to the article inspired me to do a search which finds and , which I really really like. Thanks so much. |
|
|
:::::Yes, precision medicine and its use in AD has been under active research and has got the attention from government(s), as evidenced by the external links I added to to ] recently. There seems to be phase 3 clinical trial in the US too. I’m not sure if the links I found will be of any use. I do agree with you that it’s important to have precision medicine included in some way. But, as I’m not sure if *my advice* will do any good ;-) I’d better let others weigh in. Best, --] (]) 15:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It was definitely good advice in general, but there are certain exceptions it seems, especially related to ]. So I've been trying to take a middle-ground approach where I do make a few bold (controversial) edits like this one, but most of my effort is not spent on these, but on getting familiar with articles, editing styles and policies instead, both by making less controversial edits and by observing what others do. I totally get what you mean by the ], and I also agree that it's slowly improving. |
|
|
::::::I'm glad you like these sources, I do too! To me, it seems like ] is the only promising research direction currently, but I'd be more than happy to see other approaches show promise as well. |
|
|
::::::I'm planning to read a bit more about the topic, as well as try to find more (and "better") sources just to make sure I'm also not missing anything, and then come up with a suggestion that will hopefully move us toward a better consensus. ] (]) 18:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== Source - Life span == |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
Broken link. ] (]) 23:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
: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) |
|
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)