This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 4 January 2014 (→"Vetted at FAC", FAR notice: add note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:58, 4 January 2014 by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (→"Vetted at FAC", FAR notice: add note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psilocybin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Psilocybin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 29, 2012. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Possible new sources
This in The Guardian today discusses two new studies: This is an MRI study - I can't see any others in the article and another coming out on Thursday will discuss possible uses to treat depression. I'm not too hot on the ins and outs of WP:MEDRS but they might be worth a brief mention somewhere. SmartSE (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm leery about adding hot-off-the-press primary studies per MEDRS. I'll read the papers and see if maybe they can be distilled to a sentence or so each, but it might be better to wait for a review to come out. Sasata (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reuters also did a piece referencing the recent PNAS paper. Wingman4l7 (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Pilot study of psilocybin treatment for anxiety in patients with advanced-stage cancer. Grob CS, Danforth AL, Chopra GS, Hagerty M, McKay CR, Halberstadt AL, Greer GR. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Jan;68(1):71-8. Epub 2010 Sep 6.
- Similar to the comments regarding my suggestion, because this is a primary source per WP:MEDRS we should wait until secondary sources are published before including it. Thanks for your suggestion though. SmartSE (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
CAS number
Why is the cas number unverified, with an ugly red x next to it? The NIST webbook says that the number (520-52-5) in the box is correct, and SciFinder also confirms the number in the infobox is right. It seems that it doesn't show up in Common Chemistry, so this is probably the issue. However, that doesn't make the number wrong.98.71.50.61 (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment
It is misleading to report effects that happen in 90%+ of cases in the same breath as effects that happen in .05 % of cases without clarifying the relevance. I notice there is no citation for the claim that the mushrooms "cause" nausea. On most other drugs in Misplaced Pages, articles do not pull up the entire MSDS findings on rare side effects and splash them in the headline chapter equal to the common effects. The writers are showing their bias and not backing it up with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.43.243 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- See "nausea (44%)" in the "Physical effects" subsection, and the corresponding citation. Sasata (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
New section moved here for temporary parking
I've moved the newly added section here for now. Unfortunately, an explanatory note in the same issue as the main article does not quality as a secondary source. Once this study is discussed in review articles, we can add (a shortened version of) it to the article. Sasata (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
"In 2012 researchers in the UK used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the effects of the psilocybin on blood flow in the brain, a widely used surrogate for measuring changes in neuronal activity. Against expectations, the presence of the drug was associated with decreased activity in many parts of the brain including in particular hub regions such as the thalamus, and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC). The work also suggested a decreased coupling between the medial prefrontal cortex and the PCC . Many of the hub areas involved are part of the so called default network that becomes active when a person is at wakeful rest. The researchers speculated that depression of such activity in the default network may mediate the subjective effects of psilocybin by removing some of the normal constraints on cognition."
- Carhart-Harris RL, Erritzoe D, Williams T; et al. (2012). "Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (6): 2138–43. doi:10.1073/pnas.1119598109. PMC 3277566. PMID 22308440.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Lee HM, Roth BL (2012). "Hallucinogen actions on human brain revealed". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 (6): 1820–1. doi:10.1073/pnas.1121358109. PMC 3277578. PMID 22308478.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
- That paragraph is undue. Agreed. If someone wants to include information about the primary study, they can look in these two reviews because they have both cited the study: doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.039 and doi:10.1358/dof.2012.37.7.1811776. Is there anything not covered by these review articles that someone thinks is important to include? If so, what? A short sentence that cites the study in the style of WP:MEDREV might work. It could have worked more before the article was cited by secondary sources. Biosthmors (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, a commentary by an independent author in a high-quality journal such as PNAS ought to be counted as a secondary source. I agree though that the paragraph gives undue weight to the finding. If it were possible to work in a sentence about it, I don't think that would be unreasonable. If I was writing an article about the effects of psychedelic drugs on the brain, I would definitely make use of this source. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is secondary in a sense, and I've even cited an editorial myself in Deep_vein_thrombosis#Research_directions. (I've kept it simple there though.) It's not independent or third-party, however. So it's not a standard secondary reliable source. But I take your point about different authorship... though it's still the same journal and issue. So it's a bit grey. Biosthmors (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- As the person who wrote this paragraph I would ask where does it say in the rules on secondary sources that a review article in the same journal does not count? Also I just noticed another short review article in Nature http://www.nature.com/news/psychedelic-chemical-subdues-brain-activity-1.9878. Does that count? I think you should bear in mind that this kind of research is very rare because of the difficulties in getting approval to study drugs that have been deemed illegal in many countries. I think you are setting the bar too high to expect a plethora of other independent findings that might verify or refute this work at this stage. The fact is the research has been published in a prestigious publication, along with a couple of review commentaries in high quality journals. Ignoring the findings until they've been independently replicated or further reviewed by other groups I think therefore is doing a disservice to readers. As Looie ackknowledges he/she would definitely use this source if writing an article about the effect of psychedelic drugs on the brain. To exclude it from Misplaced Pages's article therefore makes little sense to me.Julian Brown (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well I don't see a problem with including the material. The study has already been by cited review articles, for example. Go ahead, be bold, and cite a review? Biosthmors (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok but depends on whether the reviews I mentioned count. Sasata already discounted the first one I cited because it was a commentary published in the same journal. The Nature piece is also a news commentary though it does include a couple of references and cites some examples of related though possibly somewhat contradictory findings. I am also not sure about making my paragraph significantly shorter as it's hard to say anything intelligible about this work in less than a few sentences. Two of the sentences, after all, are taken up in explaining fMRI and the default mode network. This research is surely one of the most interesting studies on psilocybin to have been published in a long time so I think it merits a decent explanation. Perhaps it would help to mention the possibly contradictory findings mentioned by the Nature news piece but this would make the paragraph even longer. Thoughts? Julian Brown (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you've mentioned any review articles. The only two sources that were labeled as reviews in Web of Science that I found are listed above, doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.039 and doi:10.1358/dof.2012.37.7.1811776. Have you seen what they say about this study? Biosthmors (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Injection of psilocybin extracts
I propose to remove this sentence: "In rare cases people have injected mushroom extracts intravenously" (citing Amsterdam 2011). Amsterdam et al cite two cases from the 1980s plus one report from an internet forum, quote: "A report on the internet from 2007 (Shroomery, 2007 ) refers to more severe acute effects by extracts of mushrooms being intravenously injected (Curry and Rose, 1985; Sivyer and Dorrington, 1984)". You could also find reports of people smoking mushrooms, putting in their butt, extracts in the eyeball, rubbing on the skin, holding under the tongue, etc. There are a limited number of ways that a substance can be ingested. Some injecting drug users will try injecting themselves with almost anything. Injection of homemade "mushroom extracts" is not typical or recommended, there would obviously be all sorts of contaminants and mushroom material in there along with the psilocybin. That a couple of people have tried it and had bad effects is not surprising, but also not notable enough for the Psilocybin wikipage. People have tried injecting coffee extracts, but that is not mentioned on the Caffeine wikipage as a "rare method of ingestion". Likewise, the Tetrahydrocannabinol wikipage does not mention people injecting cannabis extracts. We could add to the first sentence of the Physiology section, "Pure psilocybin has been administered in clinical settings both orally and by intravenous injection." Tova Hella (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that it was mentioned in a review article (a secondary source) does indeed make it notable enough for inclusion in this article. Had that source (or other good secondary sources) mentioned the alternate methods of administration that you noted above, then we could have included them here too. We cannot extrapolate by comparing other wikipages, because we have not surveyed the relevant secondary literature for those topics to see if those alternate methods of administration have been discussed; also, those other pages are not featured articles and not suitable examples of what a high-quality drug-related wiki article should look like. Sasata (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
"Vetted at FAC", FAR notice
Hi, Sasata; always good to see you. Without getting into what "vetted at FAC" means these days, or what it meant in 2012 relative to current medical reviews, this article uses primary sources for health claims, contrary to WP:MEDRS. And LOTS more of the that need to be removed.
Further, I see that a) I did object to primary sources in the FAC, said a closer check was needed (it wasn't done), and that the content I removed (there's still more) was not in fact in the FAC version at all, so this content has not been "vetted at FAC"-- it has been added since FAC.
How many more primary sources have crept in? Let's work on getting the primary sources contrary to MEDRS removed, so a FAR won't be needed here. I think the sources that breach MEDRS or that make medical claims based on primary sources should be easily removed in a day or three, so I'll hold off on initiating a FAR until the beginning of next week.
I hope you realize that these topics have been the subject of recruiting, and that people may make important medical decisions based on primary, unreviewed sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- FA-Class pharmacology articles
- High-importance pharmacology articles
- WikiProject Pharmacology articles
- FA-Class Fungi articles
- High-importance Fungi articles
- WikiProject Fungi articles
- FA-Class chemicals articles
- Mid-importance chemicals articles
- GA-Class chemicals articles