Talk:Estradiol/Archive 1

Risks of unopposed estradiol therapy
Perhaps we should include endometrial hyperplasia as a risk for unopposed estrogen therapy? Inclusion of a progestin would negate this risk. Not sure what section this would go in.

--Ieatbugs (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

sonjaa's addition
I put your name to get your attention. I was trying to think of a scenario that matches your recent addtion here: in what circumstance would a woman whose estradiol is low due to transsexuality be given estrogen replacement? Do you mean a biological male who has changed sex and had himself castrated would then need estrogen replacement? Or maybe you had something else in mind? I wasn't planning to remove it if it wasn't an error, but perhaps we could clarify. thanks alteripse 21:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Production in fat cells
Does the production of estradiol in fat cells mostly take place in women? The text sounds like this is something that mainly is important for women. / Habj 20:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Needs work ???
This is a pretty weak article considering the mounds of research and significant findings that have resulted from these numerous studies.


 * Should be better now.Ekem 03:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention birds.
It's worth noting that birds also use estradiol as a primary estrogen. There's a massive amount of information available on research with hormones in birds, especially songbirds.

Source for Sexual DIfferentiation of the Brain Section
It appears to be drawing from some sort of study or expirement or something, it would be great if anyone could track the source down for us.Velps 18:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can do that! Have the refs here someplace - Alison ☺ 18:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Can someone look it over and ensure everything is okay? I've expanded on the section just a little - Alison ☺ 19:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to reply so late, but the info in the second paragraph doesn't seem to match the abstract given at the citation link. Is there something I'm missing? Velps 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me check. I'll get back to you - Alison ☺ 21:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm - is it the Simerly Quote or the Hulshoff one? Both of them seem to be linked in okay, though the ISSN of the latter only refers to the particular journal. Are you saying that the citations are maybe inappropriate? I'm confused! :) - Alison ☺ 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no, I see now, I'd just misread. Velps 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture reformatting
Hi, I don't actually know how to do this but the image of the structure that appears on the main page is far too large. If it could be resized that would definitely make the page easier to view. Thanks Leftwing (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

'Marilyn Monroe' Story
I noticed the section describing it as the 'Marilyn Monroe' hormone is a word-for-word copy of the referenced article. I suspect is is probably a copyright violation and should be paraphrased. Although potentially fair use (in some places) due to the educational aspect, the copying of exact wording is not necessary for those purposes, but rather just the information it provides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashing Leech (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Role in IVF
Estradiol has an important role in the IVF process...I would love to see this added, but I don't have the expertise. Aoibheannniamh (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-natal Sex Differentiation, or No?
I'm confused. In the section under "Sex Differentiation", it says in the first paragraph that estradiol cannot play a role in prenatal sex differentiation, since both male and female foetuses are exposed to a similarly high level of it.

Then, in the next paragraph, it says that estradiol does probably play a significant role in prenatal sex differentiation.

Which is it? Does or does not estradiol play a role in prenatal sex differentiation?

For example, how does one explain how some males are physically traditionally "masculine" (they have greater muscle mass and body hair), but behaviourally, very passive, conciliatory, and diplomatic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandon1978 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Whole beggining of article is completely wrong...
Etradiol is 200 times more potent than estrone to start with, not the other way around. This whole intro section is completely messed up, someone, who can write, should fix. Very strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.201.155 (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could provide citations, then I'd change it with no problems... --MindZiper (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Estradiol in MtF transfolk
[redacted] Is that enough citation for you? ;) Morgan Phoenix (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I just saw your note on my talk page - thanks for that :) Unfortunately, we don't really allow original research to be added to articles, so we can't really add your information above. I took a look around and dug up two scholarly articles which should work for what you need here :) Here are the cites all formatted and tidy, and they're well worth reading through;




 * Hope these help - A l is o n  ❤ 07:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Adverse side effects of Estradiol not scientifically founded
The section Adverse Side Effects, if we exclude endometrial and brast cancer (which seem actually related to (umbalanced ?) Estradiol) list a pleathora of serious side effects, mostly affecting heart and vascular system, but the references given [35,36] all refer to studies made with "CE/MPA" therapies (read carefully inside), NOT with bioidentical Estradiol (i.e micronized, hemihydrate, valerate, etc.) I suspect this article doesn't differentiate clearly enough between the actual risks of taking synthetic "estrogens" v.s plain Estradiol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.121.197 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In the serum ranges table free values are WP:Original Research
In this table, the values presented appear to be derived from other table values, by multiplying by a factor derived from a primary source. That is, these values appear no where in published literature, and are unique to Wikipedia. This makes them, and the editor effort deriving them, WP:OR. Find a reliable secondary source reporting actual "Adult female - free (not protein bound)" serum levels of the hormone, and remove these original calculated values. The interpretation and the use of a primary source in this way, and the appearance of original research results in WP are all contrary to policy. However qualified the individual editor placing this might have been, the rules are made because WP expects no editor expertise. We would not want all editors being allowed to make such judgment decisions (about which sources, which factors, which calculations represent good science), and the very evaluation of whether this edit is valid or not by a follow-up editor makes it clearly beyond the scope of WP. Reply here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Lede has over-detailed factual information not clearly in main body
...and this information is unreferenced in the lede. This suggests the whole of the article might have factual and citation-related issues. I am tagging the lede and article so that committed, expert editors take a look at the issue. the issue may in the end be small—the sentences may simply need to be copied to or identified in the main text, and citations supplied/ensured—but the lede cannot be the only place a particular hard factual (numerical) datum appears in an article, and certainly not if it appears nowhere else with citations. Reply here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Overly detailed lede moved to create new "Intro" section, and
...introductory material from main body used to construct a new brief lede. Note, consistent with the preferences of others editing in these areas, I did not remove unreferenced text; I added citations where I could, but most of the citations missing earlier are still missing. I just noted sentences needing citation (in the new "Intro" section) with a tag. The lede now reads as an approachable, layperson's text, and all the unreferenced detail is now within the body. @User:Boghog, @User:Jmh649, please check for accuracy, for much of what I am doing is pasting from other parts of article and other articles (and nto generating new material direct from sources). Goal was a readable, absolutely general lede without numerical potencies and serum level comparisons. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the former lead was too detailed. It should be noted however that Wikipedia articles generally do not have separate introduction sections.  The lead functions as both the introduction and a summary of the entire article.  For an article of this length, it would be appropriate that the lead be 3–4 paragraphs long.  Hence the current introduction section should be split and the more general parts moved to the lead and the more detailed parts to the appropriate sections of the article. Boghog (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Organized per MEDMOS. Agree that the lead should be the introduction. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)