Talk:Hypersegmented neutrophil

Remove technical flag
I think this is approachable now. Can we remove the "too technical" flag? Chaldor (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypersegmented Neutrophil's
I have a source (see below) that states "A cell with more than five lobs is considered abnormal and referred to as a hypersegmented neutrophil." The wiki says 5 or more, so... to update or not to update... (please forgive me... I've forgot how to cite, so here's everything!) "Clinical Laboratory Hematology" by Shirlyb B. McKenzie and J. Lynne Williams - 2nd edition - Copyright 2010 - ISBN-13: 978-0-13-513732-1 24.177.203.132 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, we'll put this in pending more cites. I believe this is one of those things where standards are not uniform on the cut-off. S  B Harris 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Factual accuracy/race-based medicine
Is the tag calling into question the claim that blacks have greater neutrophil segmentation than whites? I believe that the current wording in the article is vague and can be improved, but if there is actually a complaint about the factual accuracy of the claim, I'd like to see some counterevidence. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The citations given match up, as #3 states in its abstract that:
 * "A surprising, incidental observation was that blacks had significantly greater neutrophil segmentation by both criteria than did whites and others. This difference was unrelated to cobalamin or folate status."


 * The other citation (#4) reads:
 * "Neutrophil segmentation is normally greater in blacks than in whites."


 * Then it gives a reference which in on the online version (I tried my best but haven't been able to find it, could be because I'm trying to find it using my mobile!). Despite this, the bottom line is that there are two apparently reliable sources for this statement, so I don't know why the tag is on there either...
 * I'd suggest cleaning up the wording then removing the tag, with a clear edit summary.  Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That was basically what I was thinking. I was confused because the tag was for disputes over facts, but it doesn't seem like that's actually what's being disputed. The user (Bbheinz) who added the tag put this in the edit summary:
 * "calling into question the value of the note about blacks vs whites. Race-based medicine is being called into question as a driver of perpetuating racial disparities in medicine, and use of broad-sweeping generalizations about race should be avoided in medicine. Please see: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/435/ (also this is my first tag, please let me know if i can do better! thx!"


 * That paper doesn't talk about hypersegmentation, and it's not clear to me that there will be any racial disparity from knowing that blacks have high neutrophil segmentation. Since Bbheinz hasn't responded yet, I'll just edit the text to something like "In the United States, blacks have been found to have greater neutrophil segmentation than whites," after looking into citation 4 and verifying that the study it references was done in the U.S. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

13 February 2020 edit
I wasn't able to find the paper that citation 4 cited because the page that the reference was on wasn't available on the Google Books preview, and ended up removing citation 4. Here is the template if anyone else is able to check it:

Clarinetguy097 (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)