Select Page

Talk:Alzheimer's disease

Former featured articleAlzheimer's disease is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 21, 2008.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 12, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
August 14, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on August 10, 2010.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 15, 2011, July 15, 2012, July 15, 2014, July 15, 2015, July 15, 2017, and July 15, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article

Source [12] - Life span

Broken link. Voxit (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting, I've fixed it by replacing the original reference with some newer and more precise ones. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brain rot listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 21 § Brain rot until a consensus is reached. Based5290 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amyloid beta theory under scrutiny

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: https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease 2A02:A449:F9AB:0:D0DE:BAA9:81BC:728A (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As described in Sylvain Lesné#Impact on Alzheimer's research, 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 history section. What do you think @SandyGeorgia? (pinging you since you wrote most of the content covering this investigation). Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 featured article) 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Bendegúz Ács considering this update from Piller (and the changes I just made at Sylvain Lesné), 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 Biochemistry_of_Alzheimer's_disease#Amyloid_hypothesis is warranted? I'm out of time for today, and although I did (partially) update Lesné, I haven't yet updated Karen Ashe, 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Biochemistry_of_Alzheimer's_disease#Amyloid_hypothesis is a good place to mention the retraction now. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into articles on Alzheimer's about once a year for the past decade. Every single one of those articles was careful to state the amyloid hypothesis was unproven. An amyloid suppressing drug has been synthesized, but that is still an unproven treatment. My impression of everything I've read in the past decade is the amyloid hypothesis is neither proven nor unproven. Strictly a hypothesis and no more or less. This is also an issue for the Dementia article. 74.104.188.4 (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significant reduction in incidence (partial prevention)

Articles here and here discussing Shingrix appears to reduce incidence of Alzheimer's by 20 percent. I thought I ran into an article on a different vaccine reducing incidence of Alzheimer's by 50 percent, but I didn't save the link. Not a cure, but a significant improvement. 74.104.188.4 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would need WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could examine the linked URLs? They might not be the source, but they are an authority/peer on the topic. The first one pointed to Nature. (okay, I goofed Wikipedia's formatting when originally entering the URLs and I had to fix them)
Hi 74.104.188.4! I have written two sentences about this. Thank you for telling us! Lova Falk (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but we really need reliable sources for this i.e. WP:MEDRS. This is just primary research at the moment. Bon courage (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He linked to University news articles. Those are valid secondary sources. [Here's a NYT article|https://archive.is/lBvob] Fephisto (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. Bon courage (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Here's an NYT article. https://archive.is/lBvob Fephisto (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also very unsuitable WP:MEDPOP. As with all medical research, this stuff has no place in Wikipedia until or unless WP:MEDRS sources assess it. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that https://med.stanford.edu/news.html and https://www.ox.ac.uk/news are not good secondary sources for medical information? Lova Falk (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide some constructive comments about what would be acceptable--maybe some example sources that are acceptable according to you--so as to not come into conflict with WP:WL, be less antagonistic, and help come to a better consensus? We're covering the gamut from the highly reputable NYT to academic outlets here. Fephisto (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no source that I know of is acceptable. This is the very common situation of some primary research generating PR & headlines and it's just not encyclopedic. A lot of this research turns out to be wrong and Wikipedia is focussed only on accepted knowledge as generally covered in WP:MEDRS when it comes to WP:BMI. If in doubt, ask at WT:MED. As to "constructive", I'd advise looking at recent reliable sources[1] that are not used in the article, and incorporating their actual knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that the secondary sources for medical articles should be academic articles and can not be articles reporting, even though from respected institutions about studies? This was not quite clear for me after reading WP:MEDRS but I can see that it makes sense. Lova Falk (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Generally, yes. Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but the recent reliable sources you suggest would end up being primary source articles, which would run us into conflict with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't? That doesn't make sense. I agree with @Lova Falk's initial questioning here, that can't be the right read. Nonetheless, here is the relevant pubmed article, does that not count either? To try to be constructive myself here, I could suggest sourcing all five sources here for the claim: the pubmed article, the newspaper articles, and the academic articles. Fephisto (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PMID:38393913 is – yes! – a WP:MEDRS and so useful, as are the ones in my link (I have not vetted every one though, so some might be from questionable journals). Newspaper articles, not so much. To be clear, there is no admissible content on the Shingrix research without MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that PMID 38393913 could be used for one or maybe two general sentences, taking care with WP:DUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources and press releasy-news articles (really?) and popular lay source baloney until there is a MEDRS-compliant secondary review; this content does not belong in this article. Wikipedia should follow the best sources -- not get out ahead on a link that may not pan out. (And they're trying to eek out claim of a controlled study where none occurred.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]