Talk:Amyloidosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine 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

Contents

[edit] So, what IS Amyloidosis?

One of the things I like(d) about Wikipedia is that even laymen can look up things like "Amyloidosis" and get an idea of what it is without having to deal with the jargon of that specific area.

However, this article is incomprehensible. Someone please make it comprehensible.

Seconded. I have no idea what the heck I just read, or what the disease affects, say nothing of what it does. I got more information from the article on Robert Jordan about the disease... 71.198.127.97 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately true. I had a long battle over at Hilbert space about making the intro paragraph comprehensible to a layperson, but to no avail.
This one seems to have a similar problem: someone who already understands it would find it to be a fine article, but for someone who doesn't know what's going on, it's pretty useless.
I'll have to see if I can find the appropriate tag to get an expert in to explain it.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Added {{Technical (expert)}} template.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ŧĥīš ǻŕţǐċĺə įŝ ţǿŧāľŀŷ ìñçôмþŕéħėʼnşıßľě.
Ÿǿü čǽñ ħëłþ Ǜʼnçýċļöþęđĩä ßŷ ểǻŧıʼnġ ä çåŗǐβöǚ.

well this is talk and it is relative, so you no be deletin it

[edit] What it isn't?

"CJD, Alzheimer's and diabetes are almost never referred to as amyloidoses. However, all of these diseases, as well as some other disorders, are considered to be types of proteopathy, in which structurally aberrant proteins accumulate in certain cells and tissues."

I hav no clue why these diseases wouldn't be referred to as amyloidoses. I'm reading through the whole article after that, just to see why they might not fit, but my impulse is to snip. Brewhaha@edmc.net 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is Terrible

Completely incomprehensible with loads of spurious detail and no overview at all-the opening sentence, is laden with medical jargon and factually wrong to boot. This needs a complete rewrite. I will do this when I've got time-possibly this weekend.FelixFelix talk 14:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Felix. When it's readable to a normal mortal, please feel free to yank the template I added.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's a start

Next is sorting out the organ specific amyloidoses and then referencing and expanding. Perhaps a bit on biopsy to go with the histology section, and a table of all the precursor proteins. Also a section on clinical features of the systemic amyloisoses before the organ specific ones, perhaps. Hopefully it's all becoming a bit clearer, due to drastic simplification.FelixFelix talk 22:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mortality Rate?

Is it fatal? what percentage of people die from it. Robert Jordan is one of my favorite authors, so I am really quite concerned.

Yep, they do-the mortality depends on what type they have and whether they get treatment for the underlying cause or not.FelixFelix talk 20:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
RJ's gettin past it i think, he's helping test a new drug that is showing excellent results. his lamba light chains are within normal range now, but he's still dealing with it, but with less struggle than normal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.190.50 (talk) 14:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GI manifestations

doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01669.x reviews the manifestations of amyloidosis on the digestive tract. JFW | T@lk 09:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AL amyloidosis

Review of AL doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06936.x by the people from the UK amyloidosis centre. JFW | T@lk 10:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That link didn't work when I tried it, JFW. Nbauman (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classification

Since the amyloidologists like to classify amyloidosis on the basis of the type of amyloid, and the pathologists like to classify based on disease process, I've included a brief table of types of amyloid, which are referred to elsewhere, I know, but I think this is a bit neater. The systemic amyloidosis part needs more work, and I think some more info on pathogenesis, clinical correlartion & prgnosis would be useful. If I get time, I'll do it, but if someone else wants to, feel free. Mattopaedia (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it's a nice looking table-I really don't see what this adds at all, apart from making the article more confused-it randomly mentions some amyloid proteins that are already classified sensibly , and others which aren't really amyloid proteins at all (which are also mentioned). I really want to remove this, but I thought I'd raise it here first.FelixFelix talk 10:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Felix, perhaps I wasn't being clear in my comments above, so I'll try to be clearer, because I believe the table will ultimately be of value to the article.
  • This article is, to me, not a clear representation of the disorder, & needs improving. That's what I've set out to do. I'm a busy man, so I'm not going to do it all at once. I will help it evolve as my time allows. I notice you've made a lot of edits here. Perhaps you feel this is your "baby" and don't want some stranger fiddling with it. I know the sense of pride one gets from producing an article that seems like a wondrous piece of work. But this has to grow, so please, give it a chance. I don't want to disfigure your work, only enhance it.
  • I'm sure you know there are two common methods of classifying the amyloidoses -1.) On the amyloid type, and; 2.) On the clinical manifestation of the amyloid type. There is, of course, a combination of these two, also commonly used. I believe this needs to be indicated in the article.
  • Clinically, Systemic Amyloidosis is an entity that is subclassified into the primary and secondary amyloidoses. Localised amyloidosis is often considred seperately, but it can be AL-type, which makes it (in many cases) to be a primary amyloidosis.
    • Primary amyloidoses are associated with immunocyte dyscrasias & are the most common type.
    • Secondary amyloidoses occur as a result of some underlying chronic inflammatory or destructive process.
I believe the classification as it stands in the article does not clearly convey this, and my intention is to re-write so that it does.
  • My aim is to create an article that gives some consideration to the above points.
I disagree that the list of amyloid proteins is "random." You will notice that the list starts with primary (AA) then the more common secondary types, which, I believe, I have ordered by prevalence.
I disagree that the tabled proteins are already classified sensibly. There is scant consideration to the vagaries of classifaction I have outlined above.
I disagree with your assertion that some "aren't really amyloid proteins at all." Although there is controversy surrounding the definition of amyloid, I believe that any extracellularly deposited protein which has a β-pleated sheet configuration and which demonstrates green birefringence is generally accepted to be an amyloid protein. All of the proteins I have listed fit this classification.
On a personal-style note, I found your edit comment of "uugh!" somewhat offensive. Add that to the style of comment you've written above, and it makes your input here seem to me to be flippant and disrespectful of the time and effort of a medical colleague, who, like yourself, has an interest in providing good-quality free & readily accessible information. Whilst I thank you for your interest in my edits, I will respectfully request that your responses be more considered. Maybe I'm being oversensitive, I don't know, but it pays to be nice. Have a good day!
Mattopaedia (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, if you want to put time and effort into improving this article, that's great. I won't get in your way, but if I don't like the end result, I won't be backward about coming forward. And if you find my edits and edit summaries flippant and disrespectful, then sorry, I do think you are being oversensitive.FelixFelix talk 14:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on classification

Now, I've had a closer look at the classification info in this document, and it was a reasonable departure from my understanding of its classification. So I've read Robbins Pathology, Harrisons Internal Medicine & Cecil Medicine, and all of them describe the classification essentially as I've put it (which is why I made these changes - I'm more inclined to believe thos texts, & would like wikipedia to be as credible). Again, I went with another table, because I feel it gives the reader q quick overview, and they can then go on to read more if they desire, rather than having to scroll through screens of prose. I've made no changes to the section on localised amyloidosis, only because I haven't had the time to look closely at it yet. In due course, I shall. There should be something written on pathogenesis, clinical presentation, prognosis and treatment. Cheerio! Mattopaedia (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a prion disease?

Hi, Is Amyloidosis a prion disease? Could it be diet-related? Thanks, Bennie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.189.224 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)