Talk:Enobosarm

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kelventran, Pharmacystudentkm, Lauren.chen, Clphan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

stereochemistry
Not sure about the stereochemistry around that chiral centre as different references show either enantiomer as the correct one! Currently going with the structure shown in Drug Discovery Today. 2007 March ; 12(5-6): 241–248 as this seems to be a fairly authoritative review on these compounds. Meodipt (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Chemical Abstracts, it is the S enantiomer which matches what is in the article now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed?
To the editor that has been changing the article to say that the structure is incorrect, could you please detail your concerns here? It is preferable to discuss potential problems with the article here than in the text of the article itself. According to Chemical Abstracts, ostarine has the structure and data shown in the infobox, and it has the synonym S-4, and the CAS#401900-40-1 matches. It is certainly possible for multiple chemical databases to be incorrect, so could you point to a specific journal reference or something else in the primary literature that contradicts what is reported here or elsewhere? Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

--

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. True, the American Chemical Society formerly listed CAS#401900-40-1 as S-4 and Ostarine. This was a mistake on their part.

If you redo your search it is my understanding this has been corrected. They now correctly list S-4 as Andarine, which is the structe you show. Please note that S-1 is also not Ostarine.

If contact the American Chemical Society about this, you may get a reply such as "I am happy to report that the CAS record of interest has been corrected. Please accept our apology for any and all inconvenience."

According to GTx, the structure of Ostarine has never been officially released to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.79.215 (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Epidemiology/prevalence
User:Meodipt - about this and this prevalance/epidemiology is WP:Biomedical information and subject to MEDRS. This is not even a little ambiguous.

further the guy that was interviewed in the guardian source was careful to say, and quite explicitly: “When you put a bucket down into the sewer and bring a few mililitres of water back up, what’s in those few mililitres is not necessarily representative of what’s underneath the whole of London. Because you get a peak for a couple of compounds, I think it’s a bit dangerous if you use that data to draw conclusions on the whole city.” Extensive research would need to be done, he says. Highlighing the one finding is just sensationalism, and is exactly why we don't use refs like this for biomedical information. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Meh, I don't really have the time or inclination to debate this, especially in the absence of better sources. It is a striking finding though - wastewater analysis for drugs of abuse usually focuses on the main drugs like cannabis, cocaine, heroin, meth etc, because to get a detectable amount in the water there needs to be a large population of people using it. Designer drugs they usually don't bother with as in general they will be below the limits of detection. So for the most prevalent pharmaceutical to be an unapproved substance, and a bodybuilding compound at that rather than a recreational drug, is quite unprecedented, even if it is just an isolated result. I'll add this back in once someone mentions it in a MEDRS compliant review article on the topic then! Meodipt (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is striking; it is also a one-off. Not generalizable and we shouldn't lead people to think it is. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Foundations II, 2019, - Group 2B Goals
Some changes we would like to make to the article are 1) the legal status of the drug in the US 2) updates on the clinical trials of the drug including its current trials being used for positive metastatic breast cancer. Kelventran (talk)

Peer Review The group’s edits does improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review by updating its current status in the United States and including additional clinical trials about the drug. The group achieved its overall goals for improvement. Though it did not include updates on clinical trials of the drug being used for positive metastatic breast cancer, many other clinical trials were addressed regarding treatment for stress urinary incontinence and improvement in lean muscle mass in elderly women and men.

Sharonluong (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

1. The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view that is neither positive or negative. Lyjanicee (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

2. The points included are verifiable with cited secondary referenced that are freely available and accessible. Huyha63 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

3. The edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. Yes Laurafansun (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

4. There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation because the sources were cited well and the information was paraphrased acceptably. Sharonluong (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)