Pharmacology
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

WP:DRUGS Archive 1: 6/2004 – 7/2006 WP:DRUGS Archive 2: 8/2006 – 2/2007 WP:PHARM Archive: 1/2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

My answer could be wrong and need your help. Thank you! --Reciprocater (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to do but I really need to go to bed. Thank you. --Reciprocater (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the lede of adenosine. Someone biochemical should look it over. Perhaps adenosine is used as a drug, but the article gives the mistaken impression that its pharma application is greater than its biochemical role. Which strikes me as laughable and misleading. Perhaps the article should be split into the (niche?) medicinal aspects and the gigantic role in biochemistry. I am unfamiliar with the med chem. One more thing: if we could converge on the lede for adenosine, we could "replicate" that format for the related nucleoside. And then the nucleotides, etc.

There is the opportunity for some deft wordsmitthing should anyone want to try. For example, the article says things like adenine is attached to ribose. Chemists and biochemists talk like that but we know not to take these words literally because adenosine does not contain adenine, but the adenyl radical. Ditto for ribose. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A RfC on how we are allowed to summarize medication prices. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are a team of enthusiasts, very passionate about science! We develop this beautiful instrument for organising researches and making them inter-connected. Similar to text wikipedia. But our is solely about medical statements and the logical relations, proven by researches. Please check https://biomindmap.com/ and the Introduction with the short video.

I would love to see new users — the community of people who want to digitalise the science, make it more available to students and scientists, and also help ordinary doctors to have best knowledge from the researches.

Maybe you could help me somehow to find the audience.

I would like to connect with researchers, doctors, biohackers, health consumers, students world wide.

As for quick demo, check this autogenerated path, where each segment is separately proven by researches. https://biomindmap.com/links/path/4566,4568,504,4332,5750

Let's discuss? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex inside (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An apparent styrene leak in India has killed 13 people and injured many more. As such, there's been a surge in editing on the 'Health effects' section of that page, not all of it to our usual standards. I normally try to keep away from health sections as I leave WP:MEDRS stuff to the experts. I'd appreciate any help available. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I've just axed the redirect from lente insulin to the glossary of insulin terms and made a stub at that link in line with what ultralente had already. Yay? I think?

But I noticed now that the redirect (lente insulin) is different from the format of the stub name that already existed for the similar type (just "ultralente"). Which is preferable - basically, should one or the other be moved, or it doesn't particularly matter? If neither needs moved, should a redirect be created from lente to lente insulin (or vice versa), and from ultralente insulin to ultralente (or vice versa)?

Furthermore, I'm really interested in expanding the articles on both to include the historical significance/data/uses/discovery/etc. but I'm not really sure where to start - it seems really daunting turning a stub into a full fledged article. Are there any examples of "intermediate" articles that are more than a stub, but not as long as, say, NPH insulin that I could look at to keep making baby step improvements?

Apologies if this isn't the best place to ask these questions - but thanks in advance for your help! Berchanhimez (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps have a look at the Class C list on the pharmacology project list here; you'll see some articles just a little further along. The pharmacology Pharmacology Style guide might be helpful too. Klbrain (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically exactly what I needed - I'll keep the style guide up and try to follow it when expanding the two articles, and I've moved them in accordance with the guide. The list of "C articles" is also helpful for some guidance on what to shoot for when expanding. Thanks again! bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (say hi!) 08:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a standardized way for drugs that are only known by a company code? I've almost always seen it written as PREFIX-NUMBER (for example, AGN-2979). I've also occasionally seen it written as PREFIXNUMBER (GNF6702). But something I've only ever seen here on wiki is PREFIX-NUM,BER (like GR-196,429). I feel like it would be better to move those articles to PREFIX-NUMBER format. In other words, move GR-196,429 to GR-196429.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, which would also be consistent with similar drugs from GlaxoSmithKline like GR-127935. A simple move is technically possible. A quick scan through Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code shows that there is currently mixed use, and it might therefore be worthwhile having some consensus to do this systematically. Klbrain (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think would be a good way of doing this? Occasionally, I come across a page that can't be moved over another redirect, such as SKF-81,297. It seems unnecessary to post at WP:RM#TM each time that happens.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose merge. While I've rarely seen commas in the company code names too, and in those cases, I wonder if they are errors (like in this scientific paper in reference to SKF-81,297), I'm not sure if we can paint a broad brush. Some drugs are named with a space instead of a hyphen (or without a space as all), as I just fixed for AMG 319. Lest we make a mistake, and to correct previous mistakes, this should probably be undertaken on a case-by-case basis. I went back and forth between weak support and weak oppose 3 times, for reference.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 17:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{Drugbox|molecular_weight|xxx}} displays the value as "xxx g·mol⁻¹", that is, with the units automatically added. We currently have a lot (almost 5000 by a quick heuristic--please don't run this query a lot, it's expensive) articles that include units in their |molecular_weight= value, meaning the display includes the units twice. See for example Morphine, where |molecular_weight=285.34 g/mol is rendered as "285.34 g/mol g·mol⁻¹". So that needs to be cleaned up. Many of these have the molecular formula given in a way that the drugbox can calcluate and display the weight automatically. Does anyone have a preference for retaining the hardcoded masses (clean up by removing the units from the value) vs allowing the automatic calculation (clean up by removing the |molecular_weight= field altogether)? DMacks (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting and working on this. Is the latter proposal to remove |molecular_weight= from the template itself, or to delete the parameter entry in boxes where it can be automatically calculated? I suppose the problem with the former case is your comment that many of these have the molecular formula given in a way that the drugbox can calcluate; the concern being many rather than all. If the vast majority of boxes can calculate the mass/weight automatically, then the hardcoded weight is redundant and it would be better to remove it. Klbrain (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would edit per-page to remove the redundant field. I would not want to remove support for the field from the template itself, because there are cases where autocalculation (as we currently implement it) does not work. Once we solve the redundant cases, the cases where we still hardcode could be a second edit-pass to convert to autocalculated where possible. DMacks (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, thanks for bringing this up! I'd support removing the |molecular_weight= values wherever possible. One thing less to take care of. BTW, the drugbox apparently gives the exact same molecular weights as DrugBank when it calculates them automatically; but ChemSpider has slightly different values. I assume this is a rounding error or the like on part of ChemSpider. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATC code A07 --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]