Talk:Atypical depression

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jwisniewski936, Etang1, Awyeh, Apharm. Peer reviewers: Vanessasuzhang, CP133Law, Tintrungvu, UCSFDannyThai.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Doubt
i doubt atypical is actually more common. probably more common then previously thought, but is it really all of a sudden more common then melancholic? also i dont know if you can really say that atypical gives more impairment. that just depends on severity. its good that theres more attention drawn to the often overlooked atypical disorder, as i hate when i have to explain that what people know as depression is melancholic depression and theres also an atypical version blablabla. but dont overdo it, this reminds me of feminism. Lygophile  has   spoken  05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, atypical is the most typical-- or so some sources say. I was as surprised as you are!  Similarly, apparently atyplical does cause greater impairment, although I think this is probably using some very functional definition of "impairment" like work disability or something similar.  --Alecmconroy 06:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In reality, the word atypical refers to the symptoms, not it's epi. incidence. The sx are atypical in that they are opposite of what one expects of "typical" depression in that people with this type of depression oversleep, overeat, have mood reactivity, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.148.6 (talk) 12:57, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Why has this the neutrality tag on? As for the first comment, its your personal opinion, judging from your comparison with "feminism" I think your opinion is utter nonsense and you must have been the one who put the neutrality tag on here, because you hate how it reminds you of feminism? You must have been pretty bored then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.36.236 (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if having reversed vegetative symptoms is restricted to be a problem caused by Atypical Depression, but having suffer it for 4 years before I seek professional help, it is really crippling. You want to stand up and continue with your daily activities and important events like examinations(for me) but you can't. It affected my student life gravely as I am still a teenager. So my advice to anyone is to take the doctor's prescription and trust him/her. Hope this personal experience is worth something to this discussion. (smiley face)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.11.253 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The citations given for the effectiveness of bupropion and Abilify as enhancers of SSRIs (footnote 5) does not refer to those drugs. 99.45.174.154 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Andrew

How does occasional sadness constitute a disorder?
If someone from a medical or psychological background could respond, that would be ideal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.237.122 (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Atypical depression is not characterized by "occasional sadness", but persistent depression with symptoms that (temporarily) improve in response to positive events. 8.19.92.159 (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of psychological disorders are disproportionally inflated/deflated "normal" traits. For instance, bipolar disorder is euphoria/sadness taken to the extreme. Disorder is identified as such if it hinders a life of a person. What you wrote is a very common misconception that makes depression particularly dangerous - a lot of people do not realize that their "occasional sadness" is in fact an illness that requires professional attention, just as any other type of sickness does, and do not seek help. 69.119.232.155 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria
The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Chromium(III) picolinate
This page, and the Chromium(III)_picolinate page present very different perspectives on this use. This should be remedied.Persephone12 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In chromium(III)_picolinate you will find few .com links. We also discovered that at least one of the publications was being funded by a supplier of chromium(III)_picolinate.


 * Improving the referencing (see WP:SECONDARY) in the Atypical depression article would enhance its usefulness and plausibility. The efficacy of chromium picolinate is murky at best and the biochemistry is nonexistant as far as I can tell, but the market is thriving.  Conceivably, the marketers gave up on editing chromium picolinate and have directed their energies to atypical depression, at least that threat is worth being on guard against.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mood reactivity?
What's with this part:

a) Mood reactivity (i.e., mood brightens in response to actual or potential positive events)

How is this in any way considered depression? What sane person isn't in a good mood as a result of something positive. It would be more abnormal to be in a bad mood as a result of actual or potential positive events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.184.147 (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In major depression one's mood does not improve with positive events (lack of mood reactivity), in atypical depression it does (that is why it is atypical). However, the improvement is very temporary and does not leave an emotional effect.

Also, "sane" isn't the best term to use in such context. People suffering from depression are not "crazy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.232.155 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

UCSF Wikipedia Peer Review 2019
Overall Really well written, the sections you add definitely enhance the utility of the page and blend well into the previous writing style. The info box is especially useful. Only broad suggestion would be to simplify the language a bit in the lead and the treatment section, since that is likely what someone seeking a background on this topic would be most interested in. Awesome job overall!

Info box + figure - Excellent summary in info box, graphic is easy to read - Consider linking to melancholic, season, and catatonic depression next to the “Depression Subtypes” label under the figure - Considering citing symptoms, complications, ddx (since the other sections in the info box are cited)

Epidemiology - Nice, succinct summary - Consider linking again to interpersonal rejection sensitivity (as above in signs & symptoms)

Pathophysiology - I would write out the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis instead of HPA, link to it - Typo: melancholic —> melancholic

Treatment - Consider linking to MAOi, iproniazid - Consider translating into layman’s terms - ex “superior efficacy” —> “more effective than”, since patients’ with this as a new diagnosis may not care to understand the pathophysiology but may want to better understand the treatment. - Typo: notes —> noted - Consider rewriting last sentence to be in active voice or in a more simplified sentence structure

Julia Sobel 18:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgoose89 (talk • contribs)

CP 133 Group 16 Proposed Edits
Epidemiology: Consider including information that women are 2-3 times more likely to have atypical depression than men based on this 2017 article that reviews current perspectives on the prevalence, treatment, and research on atypical depression. May also be worth including typical age of onset and other demographic trends. Etang1 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Signs and Symptoms: Consider noting the duration of time a person should have these symptoms in order to be diagnosed as having atypical depression. DSM-V states that a these symptoms should present for most days during the major depressive episode. DSM-V further expands on the details for each of these criteria, such as hypersomnia features. In addition to describing as "sleeping too much" (which can be subjective and varies by how much an individual sleeps when not depressed or what the individual considered as "normal" amount of sleep), consider specifying that hypersomnia features could manifest as either having a total of 10 hours or more of sleeping and napping combined or sleeping. Apharm (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I would consider changing the section called Signs and symptoms to Diagnosis Criteria because it lists the current criteria to be diagnosed with atypical depression. I would also elaborate more on what makes atypical depression more distinct from melancholic depression. When stating the criteria, I would include a citation to the DSM-IV-TR source that lists those criteria since there is currently no reference for that section. Awyeh (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC) I would also add more background information to the Etiology and Pathophysiology sections to give more background on atypical depression and distinguish it from other subtypes like melancholic depression. Awyeh (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Treatment Consider searching for review articles to augment the treatment section. There have certainly been RCTs regarding the use of MAOIs in the treatment of atypical depression, so there should be other information out there that can be included here. Jwisniewski936 (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 15 peer reviews
Group 16 improved the article by making clarifications and elaborating on the diagnostic criteria of atypical depression. They also explained further what differentiates atypical depression from major depressive disorder. They successfully accomplished all their outlined goals on the talk page. There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright infringement. Vanessasuzhang (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that Group 16 did a great job with their edits and met most of their goals. They outlined important changes that needed to be made in the epidemiology and signs/symptoms sections such as noting that women are more likely to have atypical depression and changing the signs and symptoms section to diagnostic criteria. The edits that were made are very neutral and match Wikipedia's guiding framework. Great job! CP133Law (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I found this article to be strong and well organized in that it was succinct, easy to understand, had a clear structure, covered its topics equally, remained impartial, and continuously cited its information with reliable sources. I believe that this group was successful in executing all their original proposed edits. The edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. My only point of confusion was that the introductory section said that women were 2-3 times more likely to have atypical depression than men, but in the epidemiology section, it says that they were actually 4 times more likely. Tintrungvu (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think group 16 did a great job improving their chosen article. I like how they used terms more appropriate with the topic that had medical significance instead of the previous which were more like adjectives. I also liked how they added to the MDD criteria to be diagnosed. I would say they achieved their goal. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Yes it does, since they mainly fixed items that were objective and they listed the correct sources. UCSFDannyThai (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggested edits
I really liked this article. I thought it was interesting to see all the warning signs for atypical depression and the onset of these symptoms, but I wish that there was more of a focus on medications. There was some mention of them in treatment, but I feel like there could have been more detail and more depth to the stuff about medication, because medication is a big piece of mental health treatment. Sgstone2k17 (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There are about 3 paragraphs dedicated to medication, did you have anything particular you wanted to be added?--Megaman en m (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

there's a dsm v now
shouldn't this article reference the dsm v instead of iv? can someone with access plz fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.254 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

a hypersomnia pathological hypothesis
In view of idiopathic hypersomnia, atypical depression, type 2 narcolepsy whose pathology is unknown in scientific research so far, a hypersomnia pathological hypothesis is that the small blood vessels next to the arousal control nucleus (Fudan University and other teams have replicated such arousal control nucleus through animal experiments) lead to excessive carbon dioxide, which becomes a natural 7*24 hours anesthetic, thereby causing complex symptoms such as lethargy. Shishui baike (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As explained on your user talk page, on Wikipedia sources for medical claims must meet the standards given in WP:MEDRS. Primary sourcing to animal experiments do not meet those standards. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)