Talk:In silico medicine

UCSF Peer Review
Comments: --Really interesting topic that I know nothing about, so won't be able to help too much with content, but glad you're working on this piece! --I like the lead, think it's simple and well written and a good basic explanation of in silico medicine --In the last sentence of the lead, I might say "is characterized by" instead of "implied" --Maybe add 1-2 sentences in the history section, if there is more to add --I would try to simplify the first sentence of the Rationale section; might break it up into 2 sentences and use some word choices of simpler words --In the last sentence of the Rationale section, "It has been purported BY a company ...?" or switch purported for claimed, remove comma in that sentence --Under Examples section first sentence I would remove the commas to that it flows better... "The term in silico medicine is exemplified in..." --In the last paragraph under Examples, I might phrase it as "In 2003, the first vaccine based solely off of genomic information was developed" --The Examples section is great and really helps the reader understand what in silico medicine is and what its potential is. Any more examples or further explanation you can add here I think would be beneficial --Speculation of Future Uses is fascinating... --Any visuals you could add anywhere? I think this would be helpful --Great work and really interesting topic. Happy to take a look at it again next week. UCSFrb1983 (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback UCSFrb1983! I'm making your suggested changes now. TWil2014 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge
, you created In silico clinical trials. Could you please look at this article, in silico medicine, and comment about the extent to which these concepts can be differentiated? It has been proposed that based the amount of content in available source material, these concepts cannot be distinguished on Wikipedia, and that they should be merged because of overlap in scope.

What is your opinion? Should Wikipedia combine these concepts or keep them separate, and if they are separate, what should the dividing characteristics be?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , thank you for bringing this to my attention. in silico Medicine is the umbrella term for using computer simulation in medicine. In one sense in silico clinical trials falls under this umbrella, although one could argue that clinical trials are not necessarily the practice of medicine but instead a stage in pharmaceutical development. Regardless, I think it would be appropriate to link the articles together, perhaps with a reference to in silico clinical trials in the examples section of the in silico medicine page, but I think a distinct page for in silico clinical trials would be preferable to a merge. The in silico clinical trials article is large and relatively well developed, and I think merging it would unbalance the in silico medicine page which does not have well developed sections on more appropriate examples such as musculo-skeletal modelling and cardiovascular work. Without well developed sections on these mainstays of in silico medicine I think a merge would unbalance the article towards a fringe aspect of the topic.

They are certainly not the same topic, and should not be confused as such. MattAtAvicenna (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that putting too much content about clinical trials into the medicine article would unbalance it. Can you recommend and link to here any academic paper on musculoskeletal modeling and cardiovascular work in in silico medicine? Having subtopics started in the main article would be supporting evidence that the topic is broad enough to have clinical trials as a subtopic split from it. I checked Google scholar and found some articles, but can you perhaps recommend any key articles from this field?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular aspects of in silico medicine aren't my area of expertise, so your google scholaring is as good a guess as mine! MattAtAvicenna (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There does not appear to be a strong consensus to merge this article and it's been almost two weeks since any discussion has taken place. Would it be fair to say that the merge discussion is concluded with either a "no" or "no consensus" outcome? - Dravecky (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Belle would seem to agree with you, Dravecky, and has removed the merge templates from both articles. She mentioned that fact in the In silico clinical trials DYK nomination (which she then approved), but not here, so I'm noting that the merge discussion has been closed as "stale" with no merge done. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did some research and I found no bridge between the concepts. Both concepts are discussed independently and together in many articles, almost all of which are case studies. I found no reviews of the independent concepts.
 * I have nothing to add to this except to say that the concepts are developing. Keeping them separate is a fair choice but a merger could happen also.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)