Talk:Alzheimer's disease clinical research
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale |
 |
Alzheimer's disease clinical research is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
[edit] limit scope?
Question is whether to be broad, or to limit scope to DMDs only, for obvious reasons. Answer may effect final title.....io_editor (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that for the moment it should be broad. A section could be syntomatic treatments under investigation, while other could be disease modyfying... If finally there is enough quality info the page could be splitted. However I believe that most editions would be on disease modyfing treatmentns.--Garrondo (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] MCI
I was going to expand a little on MCI treatment here, as there are a couple of promising drugs that are trying to catch A-Beta as far upstream as possible - but then I realise that the page is "AD". I really cannot see anyone being able to cover the vast range of the symptom drugs - of course such people exist, but they are few and the message is not very interesting (almost the opposite to the pathology research) - I doubt that it makes good thesis material today. My suggestion is again to change the title to focus on disease pathology - and to include MCI clinical development, as it has featured much the same themes (mice thru A-Beta, etc).io_editor (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What is more - you can see the recent sub-section "improvements" (at least I think so!) - we will be very lucky to write even as much about the other hundred Phase III trials in AD symptoms, etc. Even if I had a lot of time, I could barely scratch the surface, and it would be extremely tedious.io_editor (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to do it. --Garrondo (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Frustrating
io editor, you are becoming difficult to work with. You asked to put this table in the Alzheimer's article, and not only did you receive no consensus, the actual consensus was not to do it. So you create an article which might make sense, but instead you rename it (with a spelling error), put in what is essentially a giant advertisement for pharmaceuticals, create a huge mess, and continue along like we wouldn't notice. I wish there was a way you'd play nicer with the group. But you want to do your own thing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The consensus was in fact to do it here, and the discussion was that (per LeadSongDog, Chrispounds, Colin and io_editor) was to confine it to a narrrow range of notable/DMD, late-stage trials, which is exactly what this page is, despite it's broad name. No-one supported your notion then that ongoing clinical trials could be an "advertisement" for pharmaceuticals. I dont see a huge mess, I don't see any mess at all...io_editor (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The title is anything but encyclopedic... It had much more sense the one before, and it does have a spelling error. I think it should be renamed as before. --Garrondo (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I made above a "suggestion is again to change the title to focus on disease pathology" and you said feel free to do it. In the name I had chosen my use of "to" was in the sense of "toward" - which is Ok in technical language that I work in, but I agree, it is probably ambiguous at best for an encyclopedia...I will come back and perhaps pull the MCI therapies out - that needs some thought though, perhaps unnecessary.io_editor (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
