Talk:Hedvig Hricak

COI editing here
per tags above and Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hedvig Hricak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69QeoPgi6?url=http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/22504/hedvig-hricak-world-innovator-in-tumor-diagnosis to http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/22504/hedvig-hricak-world-innovator-in-tumor-diagnosis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
I just saw the slew of IP edits over the past few months and the insistent additions on the allegations of plagiarism. I saw that Jytdog, Sphilbrick, and 208.105.47.124 were all kind enough to recognize the problems and revert the content, but some of the unsupported content still remains on the article. Upon looking at the edit history, I found that the contributions came from a variety of different IP addresses, which have at this point all been blocked: The version of the article from November 1, 2017 has content that is well-cited and neutral. Going back to that version may be the most stable version. Is this something we can agree upon? I don't want to undo anyone's legitimate contributions to the article, but the article as it exists now is stripped down compared to the earlier version, and still filled with unsupported content. Both the references given to support the content in the Criticism section are only links to the mentioned research papers, but don't actually support the claims of criticism, errors, admission of said errors, or invalidation of research. Similarly, in the Plagiarism section, the only remaining references link to: As far as I can tell, the only potentially legitimate addition since 1 November is the Corporate Relationships section, but that was added by 185.236.202.88, mentioned above, now blocked. Given my COI with MSK, I don't want to suggest its removal just because the IP has been blocked, but I still felt the information was relevant enough to include. or could you give some input on the matter, or offer some guidance on an appropriate place to discuss this?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 89.238.143.54
 * 185.99.3.107
 * 185.99.3.105
 * 185.236.202.88
 * 31.171.152.51
 * 1) A write-up on a singular retraction
 * 2) A write-up on a paper that was not retracted
 * 3) The retraction of the first paper
 * 4) An addendum mentioning an overlap in coverage with another paper, mentioned in link 2
 * 5) The editor's note on why the paper in link 2 was not redacted


 * Thanks for your note. A question first - are you being paid to work on this?  It is just not clear from what you write above. Now a comment. Regardless of whether you are being paid, I often tell people that you are "one of the good guys". Please don't propose reverting to a version without the negative content without proposing something concrete about that.  This makes you look.... really not good.  and thus me. :( Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I am deeply sorry for having overlooked this. I hadn't realized that I was not explicit with my COI disclosure here, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. I take transparency very seriously, and I'd hate to damage the relationship I have with you or any of the other community members I've worked with. So to answer your question, yes, I am being paid to work on this. I've added the appropriate disclosures above and on my talk page now. And really, thank you for keeping me accountable; it's the only way this works.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being gracious about that. Would you please propose something with the negative content? thx Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's what I've managed to whip up. I started with the 1 November 2017 version, added in the content about Ion Beam Applications, and added sources for the content that had been flagged. Here's a link to the diff. Let me know what you think; I'm open to discussion.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The article was RETRACTED by HRICAK - THE REASON WAS PLAGIARISM AS PER THE JOURNAL EDITOR. Do not change sections with citations. You are paid by Hricak's institution to revert these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.225.28.22 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

PAID EDITORS - WHAT HAPPENED TO COI?
The following Wikipedia contributors are personally or professionally connected to Hedvig Hricak.

Kzezulinski Lyjmsk12 Clearanne FacultiesIntact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.225.28.22 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Expanding the article
Since the series of reversions in May, I've been working on improving the current version of the article to something a little more robust. I have a draft here, with some of Hricak's personal information removed (as it had been previously suppressed for privacy reasons), and some information on her research included in a separate section. I also created separate sections for her other roles, past roles, and accolades. Would anyone like to collaborate with me further to ensure that everything is appropriate for Wikipedia? you do a great job holding COI editors accountable: do you think you have time to take a look?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping but unfortunately I can't help you here much. I don't really know the first thing about radiology or Hedvig Hricak, so I can't speak for comprehensiveness and neutrality of your proposed version. I notice a lot of information is sourced to primary sources, especially Hricak's publications. Secondary sources would be better there, and be careful to avoid WP:SYN. Also, using bulleted lists like that is discouraged, remember that Wikipedia is not for hosting CVs.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  02:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! You're right to avoid WP:SYN, and that's something I'll try to consider more often.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 10-AUG-2018
The article was stripped of a lot of content after a series of contentious edits, which resulted in the current brief and somewhat redundant version of the article. I'm proposing a series of changes to reduce redundancy and expand on her research.


 * Current lead text:"Hedvig Hricak was born in 1946, in Zagreb, SR Croatia, SFR Yugoslavia and earned her MD degree from the School of Medicine, University of Zagreb in 1970.[1] She has been Chairman of the Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center since November 1999. She is Professor of Radiology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University.[2]"
 * Proposed lead text:Hedvig Hricak is a diagnostic radiologist and Chairman of the Department of Radiology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and she holds a senior position within the Molecular Pharmacology Program at the Sloan Kettering Institute. She is Professor at the Gerstner Sloan Kettering Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Professor of Radiology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University.
 * Retitle "Biography" section as "Education and career"
 * Current section text:"Hricak was born in Zagreb, SR Croatia, SFR Yugoslavia and earned her MD degree from the School of Medicine, University of Zagreb in 1970.[1] In 1972 she came to the US and completed a residency in diagnostic radiology at St. Joseph's Mercy Hospital, Michigan, followed by a fellowship at Henry Ford Hospital in Michigan.[1] In 1982 she moved to the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where she became a Professor of Radiology, Radiation Oncology, Urology and Gynecology in 1986; she later became the chief of the abdominal section of the Department of Radiology at UCSF Medical Center.[1][3] While at UCSF, she earned her Dr. Med. Sc. (equivalent to Ph.D.) from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.[3] Since May, 2017, Hricak has served on the Board of Directors of Ion Beam Applications.[4]"
 * Proposed section text:"Hricak earned her medical degree from the School of Medicine, University of Zagreb in 1970. In 1982 Hricak joined the faculty of University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), where she became Professor of Radiology, Radiation Oncology, Urology and Gynecology. While at UCSF, she earned her Dr. Med. Sc./Ph.D. from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. In 1999, she became Chairman of the Department of Radiology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). "
 * Create "Research" section
 * Proposed section text:"In her earliest research, Hricak contributed to the development of ultrasound applications for renal disease, specifically to the diagnostic evaluation of renal transplants and to the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in imaging of the kidney. She went on to help develop clinical applications of MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging for prostate cancer and of CT and MRI for gynecologic oncology.

Hricak's work at MSK focuses on the development and validation of biomarkers derived from cross-sectional imaging and molecular imaging techniques, particularly for genitourinary and gynecological cancers. "
 * Create "Other roles" section
 * Proposed section text:" * President, The Academy for Radiology & Biomedical Imaging Research
 * Member, Board of Directors, Ion Beam Applications. "
 * Create "Past roles" section
 * Proposed section text:" * President, Society for the Advancement of Women's Imaging, 1997-1999
 * President, California Academy of Medicine, 1999
 * President, Radiological Society of North America, 2009-2010 "
 * Create "Awards and honors" section
 * Proposed section text:"* Member, National Academy of Medicine
 * Marie Curie Award of the American Association of Women Radiologists, 2002
 * Gold medal, International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2003
 * Honorary Doctorate, Ludwig Maxmillian University of Munich
 * Béclère medal, International Society of Radiology, 2006
 * Gold medal, Association of University Radiologists, 2007
 * Order of the Morning Star of Katarina Zrinska humanitarian award
 * Gold medal, European Society of Radiology, 2012
 * Gold medal, Asian Oceanian Society of Radiology, 2012
 * Gold medal, Radiological Society of North America, 2015
 * Honorary Doctorate, University of Toulous III, Paul Sabatier, 2018 "
 * Create "External links" section
 * Proposed section text:"
 * Radiological Society of North America – Press Release-November 2009
 * Radiological Society of North America – RSNA News-February 2010
 * European Society of Radiology - ESR - Biography Hedvig Hricak
 * National Institute of Health - John Doppman Lecture Series
 * Current Opinion in Urology - Editors
 * The National Academies - Biographical Sketches Of Committee Members

Here is a draft of these proposed changes for easier reading.--

FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply to edit request 10-AUG-2018
Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes for information on each request.  spintendo   19:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review this.


 * Regarding note 3: I didn't include specific page numbers, as each of the papers generally covers the topics described.
 * As for notes 4-6: I have them staged in a sandbox here, here, and here. Could you review these sections again now that they're more readable?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding page numbers, this is fine, just point to the general location in the articles where the information resides. In the list of former roles, I was able to Wikilink to the last item on the list, so I've added that. In the list of awards, I'll add the ones that are notable, i.e., they have their own pages on Wikipedia.  spintendo   21:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been reading back through the papers, and I'm still not entirely sure how to point out the specific information. Most of the abstracts and purpose/results/conclusions summaries describe that the use of different kinds of magnetic resonance imaging are effective at detailing the level and nature of the particular cancer (in the case of references 10-16) or that MRI can be refined as a non-invasive diagnostic tool (in the case of references 17-23). Is there something I can do to better illustrate that?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You may use the quote parameter of the citation template to add the individual statements from each reference.  spintendo   08:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for teaching me about that parameter. How does it look now?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The page numbers are not accurate, and in each instance where her report is cited, the prose doesn't reflect what it says in the quote parameter. In order to do this, you would need to rewrite the article to describe each of her reports and how they accomplished what they did. But if that were done, a larger problem would arise, that of trying to include so many of her reports in an article ostensibly about her. When this is done, you're making the article more about her work than about her. Problems with some of the quoted passages:
 * "Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging--clinicopathologic study" - does not say how and in what way 3-D proton MR spectroscopic imaging is able to localize the existence of prostate cancer.
 * "CT and MRI performed similarly; both had lower staging accuracy than in prior single-institution studies. Accuracy of FIGO clinical staging was higher than previously reported. The temporal data suggest that FIGO clinical staging was influenced by CT and MRI findings" - Passages such as this which are aligned with "She went on to develop CT and MRI for gynecologic oncology" clearly are attempting to make the page more about CT and MRI then about the person.
 * Saying that "She went on to help develop clinical applications of MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging for prostate cancer" doesn't seem to be enough, while inclusion of every report shes ever written seems to be going too far. As another reviewer said earlier, secondary references would be preferred over MS. Hricak's reports. Since a lot of her work is in the area of imaging, I think a compromise sentence about her work in this area may be a good idea."A large portion of Hricak's work has been in the fields of imaging, where her and her colleagues have examined different techniques including ____ and ____ (insert one or two top variants), used in the treatment of _______ (insert main target of her imaging studies)."This statement would then be given as a reference one or two of Hricak's most relevant journal articles. I believe this would work because the statement attests to what work she has performed and in what areas of research and the journal article would confirm that. Saying that someone has "performed work in the fields of" seems more appropriate than saying she has "developed clinical applications of" because while the former only requires her own research as a reference, the latter would require secondary sources to confirm. Please advise on your opinions on this. Thank you  spintendo   02:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As you expressed, it's difficult to strike a balance to between being as accurate as possible while also staying succinct. I think what you've proposed is a great compromise.
 * I'll go ahead and rewrite the content you deem as biased towards Hricak's contribution in her field. Do you agree on this wording?"A large portion of Hricak's work has been in the fields of imaging, where she and her colleagues have examined different techniques including the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), cross-sectional imaging and, molecular imaging in the treatment of genitourinary and gynecological cancers."
 * --FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I like this wording very much. Would any other editors like to weigh in? I'd like to ping who is well versed in sci/med matters, to get his opinion/concerns regarding this statement being added with a few of Hricak's relevant articles as references for it. Note: If I'm not mistaken, this statement would be a compromise addition, chosen instead of adding a large listing of Hricak's published work with individual claims attached to each article, as was originally requested.  spintendo   01:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Spintendo and Facultiesintact, the content about her research, sourced to a pile of her own papers, is not OK. That is not what we do here. We need secondary sources for this stuff. This interview has a brief description of her work.  There is this but it somewhat excessively fawning.
 * Also how is it that there is nothing about the plagiarism? ref, ref? Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * raises excellent questions, and I thank them for providing the links regarding issues of plagiarism. To the COI editor: It would appear that there are some concerns to be had with the listing of Hricak's articles here. With the understanding that on Wikipedia criticism is inevitable, I can't rule out the possibility that listing the articles here may invite additional claims from other editors regarding the character of those articles. (If you haven't already, you should familiarize yourself with the claims made in the links provided by Jytdog.) In light of this, I think the best course of action for now is to stick with the status quo, and leave the article as it is.  spintendo   05:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 's suggestion is fair. I can accept the article content as is. has a point about the inclusion of criticism. However, the lack of high-quality credible third-party sources is enough of a reason to consider the validity of the use of the term "plagiarism". Until we can come to an agreement on balanced and quality-sourced content, shall we just keep it as it is?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2018‎ (UTC)