Talk:Causes of schizophrenia/Archive 2

Citation style
As an example: Note the differences (not to mention that for some reason, cite pmid returns the WRONG information, which is now in the article). The formatting differences are a minor (but irritating) factor on non-featured articles, but a matter that affects featured articles, which must have a consistent citation style. And, if citations from this article are eventually transported to the main article, they need to use vcite. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * cite pmid
 * Cite journal using Diberri format:
 * Vcite journal using Diberri format (the style used in the schizophrenia articles, which per WP:CITE should not be changed without consensus):
 * Vcite journal using Diberri format (the style used in the schizophrenia articles, which per WP:CITE should not be changed without consensus):
 * Vcite journal using Diberri format (the style used in the schizophrenia articles, which per WP:CITE should not be changed without consensus):


 * Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does someone else have time to figure out 1) why cite pmid returns wrong info, and 2) why vcite is generating two periods after the et al? Both of these need to be addressed in those templates, but they are protected and I can't read the syntax there, and don't have time to engage yet another issue.  I only discovered this when making this post.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can find that could be contributing somehow to the error is that van Dyck CH is an author on both; I can't find the Magnus Barelegs' article at PubMed to see what it's PMID actually is. Weird stuff. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted to Village Pump, Technical:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Template:Cite pmid/8799184 was added by User:Citation bot 2 on 28 December. See User:Citation bot 2; issues should be reported to the bot talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see this link has gone red, which means the bot (or someone) is working to fix it now ... So, another problem is that the cite pmid template is filled in by bot, and subject to error, which means I'll never use it anywhere. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a frequent problem with this bot. I was battling it some time ago with cite doi template. See here. Ruslik_ Zero 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ruslik0-- so this is something I should watch for at FAC, and I suggest that, per guideline anyway, that template should be removed from this article now. It was employed here against the WP:CITE guideline anyway.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is interesting is that in both case the bot inserted the same article: 'Magnus Barelegs' Expeditions to the West'—it seems to like history. I manually forced the bot to refill the citation. Ruslik_ Zero 20:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost deleted that page to see if it would repopulate properly, but I was searching for a precedent. Good to know. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Magnus Barelegs: learn something new every day! I rather doubt that he published anything on the frontal cortex, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now fixed by the bot; thanks all. So, now the (correct) example shows how insanely long the cite pmid citations are, increasing the page length. Eubulides designed vcite for two reasons: 1) something about the citation style being more common in medicine (I can't recall where to find that post), and 2) because it takes less time to load, so is more useful on long articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not married to one format or another. Each is broken and needs to be fixed. If someone wants to go through and change every single ref to vcite then be my guest, but until the technical problems are fixed in each I suggest no action. Basket of Puppies 19:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that ignores the fundamental problem which is that your change of citation style, against guideline, has now resulted in a blatant citation error currently standing in the article, which should be fixed now. The only "error" in vcite is two periods, which is quite insignificant, and may not even be an error, as it may be part of that citation style.  I'd ask Eubulides, who designed that template and was one of Wiki's finest medical editors, but he gave up on dealing with tenditious medical editors and left. He wasn't prone to mistakes, so I'm inclined to believe that the citation style employed actually uses two periods, intentionally. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey BoP, hint, when you have a few minutes, please consider changing those cites to the vcite format. We'll work out those bugs in the various templates in due time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Until they're restored to the state they were in before BoP altered citations here, we don't know how many of them are wrong :/ Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said elsewhere, when this article was copied over there were both vcite and cite pmid. I have a lot of experience with cite pmid so I standardized the article on cite pmid. Shabbat is starting in a few minutes so I'll be signing off until Saturday night. Basket of Puppies  20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you will see why this is frustrating for me now? Did you read the section above, now collapsed, and the diff above where I show when you altered the style? This is the article before you edited it; it consistently used vcite.  There was *one* wayward cite pmid: you altered the citation style, so if there are errors now ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction, it more consistently used cite journal rather than vcite journal, but it still had only one cite pmid template. I suggest we standardize to vcite rather than cite so that citations here will be consistent with the main article. They're both based on the Diberri PMID filler (which is used on most medical articles), but vcite loads faster and produces a shorter citation. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

BoP, when you get back here after Shabbat, please just do it. Happy New Year, everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't hat it until the techno people are done beating up the bot (or whatever they do in these cases), and the source checkers at FAC know to watch out for these templates at FAC! Does one say Happy Shabbat?  Or whatever the equivalent is ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, another editor has gone through all the refs, and, with a bit of time passed, this issue strikes me as a tempest in a wiki-teapot. Not worth spending time on. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I should have my head examined for having bothered to have said that. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And, I have discussed with that bot operator in the past many times to stop using bot edits to change ref style, yet he continues to do it, introducing now a fourth style to this article, so I'll be dealing with that. Also, I don't think an IDIDNTHEARTHAT pattern of behavior is a "tempest in a wiki-teapot".  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As an FYI to those involved here I've attempted to format the remaining refs to render the authors in the Diberri format, and added various extra DOI and PMID entries, but haven't made any attempt to resolve the use of cite pmid vs cite journal vs vcite journal, so the citation style remains in a mixed state. I expect a conversion to vcite journal will be the resolution, but I don't use vcite journal, so will leave that to others. Rjwilmsi  15:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No you haven't, and we've had this discussion before; please read up on the Diberri format, specifically when and how to truncate how many authors to et al and how to handle page numbers. Also read up on vcite vs cite for load time on articles with many citations; it uses a different style and doesn't impede load time.  Since it doesn't appear that DoB is going to restore the info he removed with the cite pmid template, I'll do those sometime later, using the Diberri format.  I do, however, appreciate that you added the PMIDs and DOIs, as that meant less work for me, but as we've discussed before, you need to gain consensus before using a bot to alter citation style.  Putting a note on talk would be nice.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better; I'll catch up later, and fix the cite pmids if warranted. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noted the '> 6 authors == 3 authors et al' convention at Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles) so will follow that. I am not clear on any issues over page number/range formatting, can you clarify that one? Rjwilmsi  16:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that really helps-- that bot is chunking up the text with gobs of authors in a terrible format, that makes editing hard. I'll go find the link to page number stuff and come back.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well ... I can't find it ... MOS gets fiddled with so often it's impossible to keep up with. The gist is that we don't write something like page 14535–14539; we write 14535–9, or is it 39, I can't recall ... plug in some PMID with awful-long page numbers to the Diberri PMID filler (link on my user page), and you'll see what I mean. Since I use Diberri when filling in templates, I don't recall the exact convention. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine on that one, when editing by script that's what I do (i.e. shortest format). When editing manually I will probably paste it from the journal page as is (and convert dash), but I'll try to keep the convention in mind. Rjwilmsi  16:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps! I found User:Diberri/Template filler, but it doesn't explain page number truncation, so I can never remember if it's to two digits or one-- need to test one to see.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a sample for you, it's one digit:
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed all the page numbers, will do more later. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed all the page numbers, will do more later. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite finished repairing the cite pmid templates to vcite, but I need to take a break for a bit, in case anyone else wants to dig in anywhere. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dopamine copyedits
I'm happy to see the copyedits Sandy has been doing to the Dopamine section that was imported from Causes of schizophrenia. I have an additional pointer to make, which is that the text relies overly much (as in WP:UNDUE) on reports from a single investigator (the one whose name appears repeatedly, previously as "Dr. ..."). It would be good to get more balance in that regard. I arguably have a bit of a WP:COI, which is one of the reasons I'm not doing that myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's a mess; I'm only picking up the obvious, but it needs a full rewrite. I'm not up to the task :) But did we really have that text in a featured article?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Causes page was ever FA. (?) I mentioned some things about its history recently on your user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I thought this text had come from the main article. Back to work now.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To do
I think I'm done restoring the citations to a consistent style, except for the raw URLs that I can't chase down in PubMed. I'd like to get back to the main article now, but much work remains to be done on this article, which is Unbalanced at best, POV at worst. It gives undue weight to old research, individual researchers, and primary sources, while neglecting to expand on current thinking according to reviews, and criticism of the various hypotheses. At least the following (maybe more) remains to be done:
 * 1) Eliminate primary sources as warranted, particularly the older ones.
 * 2) Rewrite to avoid undue to one author, overrepresented now in the article.
 * 3) Rewrite to include mainstream thinking and criticism/controversy about some of these hypotheses.
 * 4) Rewrite to incorporate secondary reviews.  Some are listed above at Talk:Mechanisms of schizophrenia; more can be found in the main article as it evolves.  In an area as well researched as SZ, there is little reason to rely so much on old, primary sources, or even a ten-year-old review (Shenton).
 * 5) Copyedit.
 * 6) Wikilink.

I will not tag the article POV now, because replacing primary sources is the first order of business, but I will come back in a few weeks to see if work is underway to balance this article. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Following up on that last point, in my opinion the problem is primarily in this Dopamine section, more so than for the page as a whole. As POV is generally understood by most editors, I think this is less a matter of POV generally, than of WP:UNDUE emphasis on too narrow a selection of primary sources. I have put a tag on the section, with that in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have access to the most recent textbooks on neurobio and neurodevelopmental diseases. I can post copyright-allowed sections regarding dopamine here so we can develop that section better. Basket of Puppies  20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Books are less likely to be as uptodate as recent journal-published and peer-reviewed reviews, of which there are plenty. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also have access to all of those. Any articles in particular? Basket of Puppies  22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do PubMed searches based on the subjects now covered in that section of the page, you'll find plenty. Look for review articles, and work by authors other than those who are heavily emphasized in the current version. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reason for including Philip Seeman's research
When I first read the section on dopamine a couple of years ago, it sounded very pessimistic toward the dopamine hypothesis. I inserted Dr Seeman's opinion inbetween the paragraphs to present another point of view on the proofs the other author had used. That way the article was a bit more balanced.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC) However, enthusiasm for the dopamine hypothesis has waned, despite Anissa Abi-Dargham's research; yet dopamine antagonism is still the treatment for schizophrenia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14972078.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Linked paper is dated 2004. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for whoever rewrites this section, last year this paper was published which showed sz actually have an excess of dimers, not monomers as previously expected by Philip Seeman: http://www.molecularbrain.com/content/3/1/25Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Yet Seeman et al earlier expected methylspiperone to detect dimers?!http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73F6-48065CD-3G&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F01%2F1992&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1628651273&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=47db147ed05804c07c9d7fc61e7349e3&searchtype=a Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive Dysmetria
Could someone do a section on cognitive dysmetria please?Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that you've done so, I'd like to make an observation, not as a criticism, but to try to reflect the recent talk above, that grows out of recent discussions at Talk:Schizophrenia. I'd really like us to try to get away from this pattern of saying "now, a particular investigator has put forth another hypothesis (which has not yet become well-accepted in secondary sources), and here is a primary source for it". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the only problem with that is, for example, the dopamine hypothesis has been around for decades, yet even it is not 'well-accepted'; infact just prior to Abi Dargham's work it was almost dismissed I feel...Darryl Eyles, a scientist at my local university, has been quoted as saying - with schizophrenia you don't have much to hang your hat on...http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1872656.htm
 * I see what you mean, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources provides a big problem for schizophrenia research reporting... Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we call the page 'Mechanism theories of schizophrenia'. There should be plenty of cross verification that X theory is this, and behaves this way, rather than trying to find the cause of schizophrenia?Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not needed that it is fully accepted, only that it has been considered important enough by other researchers to be reviewed in a secondary source. Nevertheless the article by Andreasen is considered a review in pubmed, so it is a secondary sourece and there are also newer reviews on it., --Garrondo (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OKNotpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that my point was not well-understood, so let me try to clarify a bit. As I said, this wasn't a criticism. Nor was I arguing for deletion of this particular material, necessarily. What I'm getting at is that too much material on these pages has been sourced to primary sources, and too often it has been of a form that reads less like an encyclopedia than as a sort of scientific soap opera: "Dr. X wrote a paper about so-and-so, then wrote another paper to explain why the first paper wasn't wrong, and then wrote a third paper about why the second paper can actually be explained..." and on like that. It tends to make the writing too lengthy, too technical, and with a WP:UNDUE emphasis on some investigators over others (particularly problematic in the Dopamine section of this page). Considering the most recent discussions at Talk:Schizophrenia and also just above, we should be trying harder to present the material sourced to recent reviews, and to minimize the narrative style of "Dr. X said", when that person is a primary source (admittedly a useful way to avoid WP:OR in many cases, but here, used beyond the point of being helpful). Again, just friendly advice, not a criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice Tryptofish. I have schizophrenia and a lot of my writing has been without regard for the format of an encyclopaedia, so I'm glad there are a team of us.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I report on Dr Seeman more than others of the same opinion is because he is a leader in the field; which is why PNAS chose him to introduce Abi Dahgam's work with dopamine.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And thank you, in turn, for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended. We should be careful to base judgments about leadership in the field on a carefully-balanced review of the scholarly literature, which is why secondary sources are better guides than are individual observations by editors. I'm itching to respond more to your last point, but WP:BLP and WP:COI compel me to hope that other editors following this talk will examine this instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the conflict of interest. I read somewhere that editors, instead of voting, should voice themselves by editing. I didn't mean to misconstue your comments and will stay away from editing this site. Sorry again.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC). But in reading Philip Seeman's contributions, and why I said he was a leader: "In 2001, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada "for his research on dopamine receptors and their involvement in diseases such as schizophrenia, Parkinson's and Huntington's".[3] In 1985, he was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.[4]". But over to you.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I had honestly never heard of third party sources, or conflict of interest till now, sorry about that; which means a lot of the section on dopamine and a lot of the article on schizophrenia is not edited properly, really sorryNotpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness, there's no need for you to apologize, and I feel bad that you felt that you had to apologize over this, so let me apologize to you! It sounds like you think that I was saying that you have a WP:COI editing this page, but that's not what I meant! The COI applies to me, not you, so please feel free to continue editing here.


 * OK, I guess I better explain more clearly what I was trying to say obliquely. In real life, I'm an academic researcher who has, broadly speaking, done research in this area. Many years ago, I spoke at a Society for Neuroscience meeting, in the course of which I criticized (on some very technical grounds) some of the methodology used in the data reported in the Dopamine section of this page. At the end of my talk, some sharp words were exchanged between me and the scientist who is widely cited in that section of this page. So I think that I would have a COI if I were to take it on myself to delete that material. (And if I really allowed myself to say here what I really think, I would be violating WP:BLP, 'nuff said!) I know enough about the literature in the field to know that the description on this page is WP:UNDUE. Fixing that would not involve citing any papers that I wrote, but it would require citing work by people with whom I've collaborated.


 * End of full-disclosure digression. Please, please, let me make it absolutely clear that there is nothing COI about people who have SZ editing this page, and that the "third party" language at WP:MEDRS refers to sources, not to editors! Please feel free to continue editing, and please understand that I wasn't finding fault with you, just trying (badly, it now seems!) to provide guidance about how to edit going forward. What should be the take-home message here is that secondary sources such a review articles should guide what we do or do not emphasize on this page (and not what Tryptofish thinks!). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I see, thanks very much, I could never have imagined that - glad to be part of the teamNotpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Secondary source in the last 5-10 years are needed. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted above at least two.--Garrondo (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great so it can be readded with those as sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not read them, so I do not know if they fully support the deleted paragraph. Moreover the aim of one was clearly to refute the theory of cognitive dysmetria. --Garrondo (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved graph here



 * This needs a better explanation before being added. Clear and short please. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't bother re-writing the caption. The image itself is not representative. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Tryptofish, the image interpretation was described as doperminergic at best guess and it is characteristic of schizophrenics.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC) As the caption says, the results of the experiment were confirmed by Seeman's 1993 Nature report, which was replicated many times and also used the subtraction technique. The same drug was tried on living schizophrenics but without accounting for non specific binding which was crutial. The diagram is a good example of the section of the article which mentions success in postmortem experiments not confirmed by invivo experiments. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think this image adds anything. It is not based on a review... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

But many images in Wikipedia don't add anything per se, except to illustrate a point more clearly. Isn't it ok to use a primary source, so long as it is introduced by third party material - there is a quote concerning monomers and dimers in the article which I believe is third party.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might find it useful to read WP:MEDRS. These really are primary sources, not review articles. The monomer-dimer thing is not widely accepted in the field as explaining binding results, and the results shown in the image are qualitatively well-accepted as correct, but quantitatively poorly-accepted, and conflict with WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I read the recommended policy; it says: "Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. They contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources, as well as less technical material such as biographies. Although almost all such material will count as a reliable source for at least some purposes, not all the material is equally useful, and some, such as a letter from a non-expert, should be avoided. Journal articles come in many types: original research, reviews, case reports, editorials and op-ed pieces, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, letters to the editor and other forms of commentary or correspondence, biographies and eulogies."

As this is a peer reviewed journal from experts, does it comply?

I think a picture is useful, especially to people not familiar to the topic. It brings home immediately that there is some difference.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in MEDRS, I guess I would point more specifically to the "Basic advice" section, especially what it says about secondary sources and being up to date. No one disagrees that the source here is from a peer reviewed journal. The distinction is between primary and secondary sources. In general, images certainly can be useful, but the concern that both I and Doc James are trying to express here is that this particular image is unrepresentative and misleading. (Yes, the scientific consensus is that dopamine receptors are elevated in people with SZ, but not by that much.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again guys, I think I see the problem. For example Doc James said the image added no new material; and Tryptofish says it is unrepresentative - are you guys aware that the figure is not that of the d2 receptor per se (so it is not saying there are seven times the d2 receptors in schizophrenia); but perhaps monomers of it [I too don't understand how a monomer differs from a normal], or dimers of it (d2-like), which is why the results are so pronounced. In Nature in 1993 Seeman found the same thing using Raclopride and Nemonapride. So saying that we can see that the image is representative and that it does add something. See further down in the Wikipedia article where Seeman says such a difference in the monomer or dimer balance in schizophrenia is the reason for methylspiperone's exagerated results too. This comment comes from a monograph source that Wikipedia recommended: http://www.ovid.com/site/catalog/Book/1752.jsp?top=2&mid=3&bottom=7&subsection=11 Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The present day scientific consensus is that the monomer/dimer thing has absolutely nothing to do with the number of binding sites. Ditto what I already said about sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, I think there would be scientists who are still interested - and should have their findings represented http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20813060 I've learned a lot about what Wikipedia encyclopaedia is and isn't; it would be good to have these policies presented to you when you first edit (or maybe they were)...Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * About your first point, that link is authored by the same investigators, exactly the issue about primary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually only one of the authors was the same in the graph and 2010 report (Seeman). The report was by: Min Wang, Lin Pei, Paul Fletcher, Shitij Kapur, Philip Seeman, Fang Liu. Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't http://www.ovid.com/site/catalog/Book/1752.jsp?top=2&mid=3&bottom=7&subsection=11 a review?

I found this review of drug use in dimers which says there are implications for schizophrenia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18824244...Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC) - sorry about that - refers to the halucinagenic receptors.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

One book says: "However, the result appears to have been due to a D4-like site (perhaps related to the D2 monomer/oligomer issue), not the true D4 receptor, and the status of the latter in schizophrenia is unknown.63" p352 The chapter is: "Postmortem studies in schizophrenia Paul J. Harrison, MA, BM, DM, MRCPsych" The book is "Diaglogues in clinical neuroscience. Schizophrenia general findings" http://www.dialogues-cns.org/brochures/07/pdf/07.pdf Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not actually a book, but a journal that was only indexed in medline since 2005 - it looks like a review. Tryptofish, I think we should include this as a significant minority point of view MEDRES says those points of view are welcome in Wikipedia so long as it is clear what they are; on this basis I have reincluded it.Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave this for other editors to sort out. It seems to me that we are going from bad to worse, and I'm failing to explain myself well enough, so maybe other editors can explain this better than I have. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mechanisms mentioned in a MIT lecture
I've been watching this MIT lecture by Edward Scolnick (video). He discusses some mechanisms that don't seem to be currently mentioned at all in this article, so I wanted to point them out so editors who are more knowledgeable in this area could add them if they're not already there somewhere. I've paraphrased and I'm not an expert, so watch the video if you want the horse's mouth: Do these need to be added? —Pengo 03:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interaction of excitatory pyramidal cell and inhibitory parvalbumin inhibitory interneurons: It has been postulated that the system is malfunctioning in patients with sz. (around 16:00 in vid) -- apparently the most consistent pathology observed, and has compelling experiments done in mice, showing some relationship to gamma waves.
 * The Wnt signaling pathway (26:00) is a bio-chemical pathway emerging as important in the pathogenesis of psychiatric illness. It's where lithium is known to work, and three genes found in association with mental illness are related to different steps in the pathway.
 * I'm familiar with this literature, and it's still a bit in the primary literature stage (including the proposed actions of lithium, by the way). It's probably best for Wikipedia to wait until this moves more into the secondary sources, ie review articles, stage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks very much for the reply and letting me know what stage it's at. —Pengo 05:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV as regards types of causes/mechanism?
I just noticed that in the Causes of Schizophrenia article, all the neural processes stuff had gone. And yet all the clinical psychology stuff (cognitive-affective mechanisms) was still there - but stuffed in an 'Other proposed etiologies' section at the end, after a bunch of stuff about Laing & shamans etc.

Yet ironically the intro paragraph here talks about psychosis being attributed "to the mind's faulty interpretation of the misfiring of dopaminergic neurons", which is a nice mixing up of the psychological with the neurological level of explanation.

Even an article on the Neuroscience of schizophrenia couldn't disentangle itself from cognitive and affective neuroscience. 'Neurology of schizophrenia' would seem to most reflect the current content of this article, seriously.

Is any other prinicipled distinction being offered for the current structuring of the content across these articles? EverSince (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not understand your issue? Yes agree that this page is not that good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I realise a similar point about NPOV has kinda been discussed above already (I only scanned the talk before & didn't expect that tbh). The article clearly contains a lot of excellent material but I am also questioning the balance. It seems the neural section that was in the Causes article, has been moved here, and then expanded with new content. Especially on the neurotransmitter angle and especially the dopamine section, which is understandable but then there's already a whole article related to that.


 * So my point is that the psychological mechanisms content from the Causes article should have been moved here also, and expanded also, with due weight. Here's a recent article that uses exactly that exact phrase in case any doubt. EverSince (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

two things on dompmine etc...
1: abilify has a 90% (wow) afinity, but the only antipsychotic that performams better than the rest in indipendent studies (clorazapine) has less effect on dopamine. 2: There is an article, neurotransmiters team up, or something to that effect that says that whaever ketamine blocks (can't remember the propper name for it, though it's in this page) causes release of dopamine in schizophrenics but not in people without the condition. 3: it may be worth while mentioning things like upregulation, dompaine supersensitivity etc.... that are known as a side effect of antipsychotics as a specfic reason why there may be greater D2 receptors etc.... esp since the rest of the page is quite technical it seems fitting to put the correct technical reasons in the page not just mention that it may be due to antipsychotics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.18 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

if you feel like being brave
The defaut network (associated with a sense of self) is more active in people with schizophrenia (source wikipedia, though I'm currently cross referencing) It is known that antidepressants can cause this to become less active and also are associated with schizoaffective disorder symptoms. it is also known that the default network is more active in people with depression, a common co-morbitity with schizophreia. positive symptoms of schizophrenia are also often/always? 'personal' by defintion.

schizophrenics (and possibly other people) experiancing psychosis have over activity in the mirror neuron network ( a sense of other selfs), this relates to the sevrity of positive symproms and also occures even though antipsychotic medication is given.

People with post traumatic stress disorder have less activity in the default network, that is when an 'external' stressor has been applied, often an 'other self'

Ketamine is also a highly effective treatment for depression, even otherwise untreatable depression, this blocks the (can't remember )receptors associated with schizophenia, the default network is also associated with depression. (that is being more self consious)

Meditation is also associated with the development of psychosis, though I don't know which specific type of meditation this may be some form of thinking about things other than ones self in a way, more cross referencing needed.

It should be noted that mirror neurons, although being a sense of 'other' selfs fire in the part of the brain that fires when ones own self performs an activity and so are also in a way a sence of 'self and other similar selfs'

Personally ketamie causes me to spot patterns in things from time to time (something some schizophrenic friends have also mentioned and i experiane when I had a psychosis and also a lot like clanging thought disorder), though it also has other effects... as yet I have no research to back this up in other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.18 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The kynurenic hypothesis
Hi,

Recently it have been hypothesis that the kynurene pathway is over expressed, rising the concentration of kynurenic acid, however as kynurenic acid is an antagonist of NMDA receptor, it seems that it's possible that the raise in the kynurenic pathway is responsible for the schizophrenic symptoms.

beside, a recent work shows that decreasing kynurenic acid permits to decrease some psychiatric symptoms.

I'd like to add these result on this page, is someone interested on helping myself?

--Nicobzz (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this 'hypothesis' is a hypothesis at all. The number of reviews written on this topic is extremely small compared to for example dopamine, glutamate, inflammation, interneurons and oxidative stress (the latter being also relatively new). I suggest we remove the kynurenic part entirely. - MAMWhistler (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

dissapearing graph on d2 -like receptors and sz
this graph was important it revealed by accident that d2 receptors in sz are in a permanent state of compression or being turned on or what Seeman would describe as d2high. In them was found an 'additional fragment' this occurs when receptors are incubated in the agonist for a long time and they are near degradation.

When you look at the striatum of Cerebral Palsy sufferers they show no d2 activitiy and that illness is caused by hypoxia.

The graph showed sz were on the way to that - which is why the 2 never occur together.

It's a disgrace and backward step that it wasn't saved.

58.108.246.194 (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As the results of this graph are simple competition and all d2 receptors had been exposed to antipsychotics in most cases why did some only respond to the ligand and this was repeated in another experiment using GLC756 and it wasn't d4 receptors as a clone for this receptor was later developed. Could it be a set of highly activated compressed receptors with additional fragments as found in FABES. Macropharges hadn't removed them because they were still active but in CP that is where they do.

58.108.246.194 (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the graph's link

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mechanisms_of_schizophrenia&diff=667942623&oldid=667758993#/media/File:Synapse.jpg

would someone first diagnosed like to see it? 58.108.246.194 (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

-- Perhaps the graph and a large part of the dopamine theory should be moved to the page of the same name. Right now the dopamine theory is very heavily represented, and other theories (e.g. oxidative stress) are underrepresented. Perhaps make the dopamine section smaller and more to the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThVanderHeijden (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Artistic view of how the world feels like with schizophrenia - journal.pmed.0020146.g001.jpg

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexyoung339. Peer reviewers: Jherd25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cholinergic/Muscarinic Hypothesis
The muscarinic hypothesis is entirely absent, no related mention. There's several medications currently in development, many of whom appear to be effective antipsychotics, who only have muscarinic receptor agonist effects. This is not a new hypothesis, it has been in the works since at least the 1990s. Clozapine itself appears to mostly function this way, and it is known as the most widely effective antipsychotic, while having a side effect profile that generally means it is avoided as a first line treatment (despite this it has one of the best response profiles of any antipsychotic ever approved and decreases rates of suicides among patients taking it). Xanomeline is in stage III clinical trials for schizophrenia with apparent effectiveness as of the writing of this post. Clozapine has strong binding to the M1 receptor and the 5HT2a receptor, alongside other receptors especially the H1 receptor, meaning that the muscarinic hypothesis is strengthened by the high effectiveness of clozapine.

I do not have the time nor motivation within me to create an entire section for it but I think it is a shame that it isn't included here. Some discussion may be wanted on whether it should or should not be included, I can't imagine a reason why it shouldn't be here. The cholinergic hypothesis isn't even a minor hypothesis, it has been talked about significantly since the 1990s as I mentioned earlier, and has several medications being developed for it specifically. Possibly coincidentally and definitely under-studied, anticholinergic substances tend to induce delirium at high doses. BruhtatoChips (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)