Talk:Causes of schizophrenia

Taking this on

I am going to take on this article. Already I've merged sections and organized the neuroimaging. Please note that while many of my references seem like primary they are in fact review articles and have been deemed secondary sources by the WP:RS/N folks. For now I am going to focus on the neuroimaging. Basket of Puppies 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

How are these reviews? I have removed them at least a couple times per [1]...

^ Jernigan TL, Zatz LM, Moses JA, Berger PA. Computed tomography in schizophrenics and normal volunteers. I. Fluid volume. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 1982;39(7):765–70. PMID 7165476. ^ Holinger DP, Faux SF, Shenton ME, et al.. Reversed temporal region asymmetries of P300 topography in left- and right-handed schizophrenic subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;84(6):532–7. PMID 1280199.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at both sources, and looked quickly at the linked FA discussion. I am confident in saying that both sources are primary research studies, not reviews. They are reliable sources as primary sources, but they are not reviews. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

They are nearly 10 and 20 years old. Involve small number of people. They in no way meet WP:MEDMOS which we follow as this is a medical article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the Causes article from which much of this new page was moved was already full of badly written content that relied overly on primary sources, far below anything applicable to FA. I have been meaning to clean it up for an embarrassingly long time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree completely and adding more will not improve things :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Typtofish, we all agree, but again, adding more of same, and BoP's edit warring is not the way to fix the obvious issues at Schizophrenia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The primary article to should be used for MRI findings should be A review of MRI findings in schizophrenia which is a review article, thus a secondary source. I asked about this sort of article on WP:RS/N and this is what they indicated. Regarding primary sources (published, peer-reviewed medical journal articles and the like) they can surely be used in an article that is not a FA, but should be replaced if/when this article goes for FA status. Basket of Puppies 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misreading or misunderstanding the responses at RS/N, and no, WP:MEDRS does not apply only to FAs. BoP, we need a specific answer to why you want to include old primary research; please give one, or I will remove the info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SG, I ask at RS/N if a published review article is considered a secondary source. They said yes. Are you saying no? Regarding the primary source, please have a read of Wikipedia:MEDRS#Definitions says, "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used". Please be aware that this article is in progress and I fully plan to use the neurology textbooks as soon as I humanly can. Basket of Puppies 19:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of sources is always a matter of consensus; could you please answer the specific question? Why do you want to use those particular primary sources, and how do you justify them per WP:MEDRS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability is always a matter of consensus? No. If a consensus of people says that "Joe's Awesome #1 News Site" that reports aliens caused 9/11 that would not be correct. Articles published in peer-reviewed science journals are reliable unless that particular journal is known to be unreliable. I already responded to your question about the use of primary sources- I am at the moment tracking down the secondary sources in the textbooks. This takes time. Your ultimatums are unhelpful. Please stop. Basket of Puppies 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:RS: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." We use the highest quality sources, that is determined by consensus and depending on context, and you haven't explained yet why you want to use primary sources in this particular instance when we have multiple, recent secondary reviews. If you are intending to say that secondary reviews report on those primary sources, please just say that, and we can move on while we wait for you to locate those review sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SG, like I said, this is an effort in progress. I am putting the primary sources there because a) they are very reliable, b) just until I find the same in textbooks, c) so that there aren't any unreferenced statements. Ok? Basket of Puppies 19:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "A review of MRI findings in schizophrenia" other than being a little old (10 years) I do not have a problem with it. It would be better to use a newer one though if you could find it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. I promise. Basket of Puppies 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem for now, but please be aware that old textbooks will not trump newer secondary reviews. I'm going to unwatch here, but please don't place primary-source-referenced text in the main FA at schizophrenia when we are working hard to salvage its featured status; there are plenty of recent, secondary reviews that are higher quality and should be used there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(I had an edit conflict with Sandy before saving this, and I'm glad to see what Sandy just said in this regard.) As a general observation, not directed at any single editor, I'm not sure what all the urgency surrounding this page is about. I know that Schizophrenia is under FA review, but I don't think that this page is. I mentioned above that I'm a bit embarrassed over not having done more to fix Causes of schizophrenia, and I am, but I don't think the sky has fallen in the mean time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SG, 1. Ok? Basket of Puppies 20:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliability

I've asked about the reliability of at least two articles. FYI. Basket of Puppies 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

• Adams & Victor quote for CT scans:

  The advent of CT and subsequently of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain provided a new stimulus to the anatomic study of schizophrenia. Johnstone and coworkers were the first to describe ventricular enlargement and sulcal widening in 18 patients and correlate these findings with dulling of intellect and affect. In a study of 58 chronic schizophrenics under the age of 50 years, Weinberger and colleagues found enlargement of the lateral ventricles in 40 percent. In 9 of 11 CT studies, the third ventricle was found to be enlarged, and in 14 of 17 studies, the sulci were widened. In 15 pairs of monozygotic twins, one of whom had schizophrenia, the anterior hippocampi were found to be smaller and the lateral and third ventricles larger in the affected twin (Sud- dath et al). Shenton and colleagues demonstrated a reduction in the volume of gray matter in the posterior part of the left superior temporal gyrus, which includes Heschl’s gyri and the planum tem- porale. The degree of volumetric reduction correlated roughly with the severity of the thought disorder. A reduction in volume of the superior temporal gyrus has also been associated with the occur- rence of auditory hallucinations (Barta et al).

  Basket of Puppies 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• How does this relate to the (disputed, primary) 1982 Jernigan source, which I don't see mentioned in this quote? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• EEG quote page 1324 of Adams and Victor's:

  Detailed neuropsychologic testing has disclosed deficits in at- tention and abnormalities of the P300 waves (cortical “event- related” potentials). These deficits correlate with reduced cognitive activation activity in functional MRI.

  Basket of Puppies 21:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't what is stated in our article?

However, this is progress; locating secondary sources was a better use of everyone's time. I'll leave the fixing and adjusting of wording to others, pending answers to my two questions above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hey folks, somebody please smack me with a Trypto-trout! I should have picked up on this before. The first of the two quotes is coming from a literature that I used to follow quite closely, and there are numerous studies finding those kinds of ventricular enlargements. I am sure that if you do a PubMed search, there will be multiple confirmatory primary studies (the quote above refers to some), and—yes!—mentions in reviews. The main caveats have been (1) that not all patients show these signs, and (2) some effects may reflect medication, rather than disease; I'm sure you'll find sourcing for both of those points. The second source may be, I think, more of a one-off as to its specifics, but there is certainly a literature about neurological measures reflecting deficits. There, it may be more a matter of using more sources so as not to become WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)