| Revision as of 04:44, 13 February 2015 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Defining biomedical information← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:07, 14 August 2015 edit undoSunrise (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,185 edits cmtsNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :: is a good start to what I commented on above. I appreciate that edit. ] (]) 04:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC) | :: is a good start to what I commented on above. I appreciate that edit. ] (]) 04:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ==Comments== | |||
| Hi {{u|WhatamIdoing}}! This is a list of a few things from my notes that I’m still not sure of right now: | |||
| *Information that a particular person is diagnosed with a particular condition. I’d probably accept a primary statement by a doctor, but probably not a person’s self-identification, because of things like ]. Of course, how the person chooses to identify in public would not be MEDRS. | |||
| *Regulatory information with medical implications, such as statements that a drug is approved to treat a particular condition, especially in the US and Europe. Approval by e.g. the US FDA is almost a gold standard for effectiveness, and I’m not sure if this can be separated. For example, I'd want to replace any news citation reporting FDA approval with a citation to the FDA itself (since it's primary for the fact of regulation but secondary or tertiary for information on effectiveness). | |||
| *Amount of productive work lost to a disease. It’s inherently an economic analysis, especially when taken at the level of the population, but as soon as it’s applied more specifically (e.g. average amount of productive work lost per person), that leads to conclusions about recovery times. | |||
| *Cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses for a treatment. A bit less inherently economic, since it presumably includes analysis of things like side effects, but the acknowledgement of such an analysis existing directly implies that the treatment has some level of effectiveness. Similarly, an incorrect claim that a treatment is not cost-effective could cost lives. | |||
| --] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 09:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==LD50s== | |||
| In response to your question about LD50s, I’m going to go with a spectrum. I would say that e.g. the LD50 in rats for cigarette smoke is medical information, but not the LD50 in guppies of a chemical that’s only used for euthanizing diseased fish. An environmental pollutant, especially one that’s known or suspected to have human effects, would be somewhere in between. The questions I think I’d want to know about would be: | |||
| *Are humans exposed or claimed to be exposed to it? (e.g. through consuming it) | |||
| *How similar is the species to humans? (e.g. mammal LD50s are much more relevant than insect or plant LD50s) | |||
| *Why are we interested in this information? Was the research done because of claims of human toxicity, or was it done to help us save an endangered species of frog? | |||
| *Does MEDRS information about the effect in humans exist? I have two competing inclinations for this one. If it causes or is claimed to cause effects in humans, I’m inclined to ask for MEDRS. On the other hand, if the information about effects in humans is described neutrally in the same article, I’m inclined to think readers should be able to recognize that the human data takes precedence. | |||
| --] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 09:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:07, 14 August 2015
 | Medicine Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Defining biomedical information
Per what was stated here by Seppi333 and me, this essay is lacking if people come away from it thinking that biomedical information only concerns diseases. The bullying example I gave in that aforementioned discussion is an example of a topic that is not a disease but has biomedical effects, such as depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, violence and suicide. While major depressive disorder can be considered a disease, there are a lot of experts that distinguish between mental disorder and disease, just like a lot of them distinguish between disease and infection, which is why there was that recent big sexually transmitted disease vs. sexually transmitted infection debate. General depression (the depression (mood) topic I linked to above), anxiety, low self-esteem, violence and suicide are not typically thought of as diseases. Flyer22 (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, we need to expand the page. I'd like to give some examples specific to alt med, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is a good start to what I commented on above. I appreciate that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Comments
Hi WhatamIdoing! This is a list of a few things from my notes that I’m still not sure of right now:
- Information that a particular person is diagnosed with a particular condition. I’d probably accept a primary statement by a doctor, but probably not a person’s self-identification, because of things like hypochondriasis. Of course, how the person chooses to identify in public would not be MEDRS.
- Regulatory information with medical implications, such as statements that a drug is approved to treat a particular condition, especially in the US and Europe. Approval by e.g. the US FDA is almost a gold standard for effectiveness, and I’m not sure if this can be separated. For example, I'd want to replace any news citation reporting FDA approval with a citation to the FDA itself (since it's primary for the fact of regulation but secondary or tertiary for information on effectiveness).
- Amount of productive work lost to a disease. It’s inherently an economic analysis, especially when taken at the level of the population, but as soon as it’s applied more specifically (e.g. average amount of productive work lost per person), that leads to conclusions about recovery times.
- Cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses for a treatment. A bit less inherently economic, since it presumably includes analysis of things like side effects, but the acknowledgement of such an analysis existing directly implies that the treatment has some level of effectiveness. Similarly, an incorrect claim that a treatment is not cost-effective could cost lives.
--Sunrise (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
LD50s
In response to your question about LD50s, I’m going to go with a spectrum. I would say that e.g. the LD50 in rats for cigarette smoke is medical information, but not the LD50 in guppies of a chemical that’s only used for euthanizing diseased fish. An environmental pollutant, especially one that’s known or suspected to have human effects, would be somewhere in between. The questions I think I’d want to know about would be:
- Are humans exposed or claimed to be exposed to it? (e.g. through consuming it)
- How similar is the species to humans? (e.g. mammal LD50s are much more relevant than insect or plant LD50s)
- Why are we interested in this information? Was the research done because of claims of human toxicity, or was it done to help us save an endangered species of frog?
- Does MEDRS information about the effect in humans exist? I have two competing inclinations for this one. If it causes or is claimed to cause effects in humans, I’m inclined to ask for MEDRS. On the other hand, if the information about effects in humans is described neutrally in the same article, I’m inclined to think readers should be able to recognize that the human data takes precedence.
--Sunrise (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Categories: