Talk:Mammography

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication
I added the following contributions: -In scans where women receive 0.25-20 Gray (Gy) of radiation, they have more of an elevated risk of developing breast cancer.[1] -This also correlates to a decrease in breast cancer mortality rates by 24%. -In 2014, the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Institutes of Health reported the occurrence rates of breast cancer based on 1000 women in different age groups. -In the 40-44 age group, the incidence was 1.5 and in the 45-49 age group, the incidence was 2.3. -In the older age groups, the incidence was 2.7 in the 50-54 age group and 3.2 in the 55-59 age group. -The USPSTF made their review based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) studying breast cancer in women between the ages of 40-49. I got this information from: -Feig, Stephen A.; Hendrick, R. Edward (1997–2001). "Radiation Risk From Screening Mammography of Women Aged 40-49 Years". JNCI Monographs. 1997 (22): 119–124. doi:10.1093/jncimono/1997.22.119. ISSN 1745-6614. -Ray, Kimberly M.; Joe, Bonnie N.; Freimanis, Rita I.; Sickles, Edward A.; Hendrick, R. Edward (2018). "Screening Mammography in Women 40–49 Years Old: Current Evidence". American Journal of Roentgenology. 210 (2): 264–270. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.18707. ISSN 0361-803X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwebb2 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Brennam29 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Deleting sentences about radiation causing breast cancer
I’m deleting the couple of sentences that state as fact the radiation in mammograms causes breast cancer, because it relies on this source, which it calls a "report", but that is actually just a Letter to the Editor: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31875513/

Feel free to add info that uses better sources if they're to be found. Dowiha (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine is a report of a study based on national cancer registries from France and the USA. Sergent Salt (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for this study? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course. This is mentioned. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31875513/ You can verify this is an original study. Sergent Salt (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I do not see anything on that linked page that discusses Mammography. Could you be more specific? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Like you said, you don't know the rules. You're just trying to censor something you don't like for whatever reason. Sergent Salt (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Like you said, you don't know the rules. You're just trying to censor something you don't like for whatever reason. Sergent Salt (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sergent - please stop edit warring and continue the disucssion here to build consensus. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 15:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not true that this has already been deleted several times. The information has been here for 3 years. The letter is a report interpreting the cancer registries of France and the United States as anyone can verify. Sergent Salt (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not what I can see in the article history. I can see the same paragraph being added by a few new editors, who never edit again, and then being removed.  You cannot allege a conspiracy to "silence this information", while also claiming it has been there for years. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The NEJM study on cancers caused by mammography is in Wikipedia since 2020 and the paragraphs related to this study have been deleted by Dowiha on the 21 October 2023. Sergent Salt (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mammography&diff=prev&oldid=988593778
 * 2020. Sergent Salt (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That link does not show anything relevant. This source was added in May 2020, after being added, then removed, and added again in January 2020 (in an edit that also flagrantly changed the content of another sourced statement to say the opposite of what it previously said).  This source is used four times in the article (each time by a new editor account), essentially repeating the same thing each time, but nowhere can I see where it validates the claims made.  The course of action is pretty clear here.  If a source cannot be found that verifies what is said, it should all be removed.   -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are we even considering a letter to the editor as a WP:RS? -- Zim Zala Bim talk 17:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The letter to the journal meets WP:RS. However, it does not meet WP:MEDRS. So we shouldn't be relying on it here. Bondegezou (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "This source was added in May 2020, after being added, then removed, and added again in January 2020"
 * Your sentence means nothing.
 * The NEJM study is the source. What is your problem?
 * The NEJM study refers to data from the American and French registers, which can be verified. Many Letters, either to Nature or to the NEJM, are used as references in Wikipedia. Even opinion articles can be used as references. Why wouldn't this particular study be used as a reference? Sergent Salt (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:MEDRS. We prefer reviews or guidelines, rather than individual studies. Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that, personally, you might prefer guidelines, but that's not Wikipedia's guideline.
 * Regarding mammography screening, many of the citations in the Wikipedia article are scientific publications that go strongly against medical guidelines, which themselves are not scientifically based and are tainted by conflicts of interest. Sergent Salt (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just look at the list of references: Many individual studies, one of which is cited twice: ref. 49 is the same as 63 and is pure propaganda for mammography screening (obvious bias); numerous studies and opinion articles going against current mammography guidelines. Sergent Salt (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that you consider a research article from the American Cancer Society's peer-reviewed journal that has been cited dozens of times "pure propaganda" reveals that you might not be coming here with neutral motivations. Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or for some other reason? -- Zim Zala Bim talk 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, there is extensive (and properly sourced) coverage of "Arguments against mammography" in the article. I don't think there's a valid argument to make that the article itself is biased. If you have issue with that citation you point out, then start a new thread about it. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 20:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is cited twice in the Wikipedia article, and you have my advice on this talk, which I would not put in the wikipedia article.
 * My point is that the reasons to remove the NEJM study are wrong, because:
 * 1) It was there for three years and the accusation that it had just been added was a pretext to remove it.
 * 2) It fully complies with Wikipedia guidelines and is in line with other references in the Mammography article. Sergent Salt (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why has my previous reply removed from the talk? It is crazy. Sergent Salt (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sergent Salt has been blocked for edit warring. It is unfortunate that they were unable, or unwilling, to provide better sources for the claims made. There are a couple of other added claims in recent times that, I believe, cite the same letter. (Currently cite 51 on the article.) I think the original paper is here; https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsr1905447. and the letter querying the study to NEJM can be read here; http://www.ls.uy/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2020-corcos.pdf. If this in itself does not meet WP:MEDRS, and/or does not support the article content, then these claims should also be removed from the article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is material based on individual primary studies, yes, we should look for more WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed this content now on that basis. Apart from the questionable source, I'm not sure if it fully supported what was claimed by both additions. It can be re-added if a better source is found that supports clearly stated claims. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is ridiculous to claim that we need to find a better source than the New England Journal of Medicine, the most famous medical journal.
 * 2) Anyone can verify that the paragraphs that have been silenced have existed for 3 years, that the claim that "This has been deleted several times before" to justify the deletion is obviously false, and that there has been a concerted attack. Sergent Salt (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A "better source" would be a medical study supporting what the edits you are adding claim. A letter simply questioning another study is not good enough, particularly when the same source allows the authors of the original study to refute much of what the letter suggests.
 * They have been added and removed before. (Here's one example from January 2020.  and here is the same user immediately reverting it back into the article and deceptively reversing what is said in other cited content.)  But that is largely irrelevant.  This source has been added by a few single purpose accounts in a number of places within the article, and has gone unnoticed.  That is not a reason for leaving them there.
 * No one is conducting a "concerted attack" and no-one is removing your answers on this talk page. Continuing to claim that everyone else is editing in bad faith is not going to help you gain any consensus for this material.
 * Could you also please state whether you have any conflict of interest in citing this letter? Thank you.-- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You simply ommit that the letter reports the results of a new medical study (age groups and results from France). This is an original study.
 * Since you fail to demonstrate that the paragraphs were "deleted multiple times before" as you did to justify the deletion (because it was wrong), you are now saying it is irrelevant.
 * I am Daniel Corcos and I don't get paid for what I do.
 * What is your conflict of interest? What is your identity? Who pays you? Sergent Salt (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "This is an original study." - Then please cite it directly. Why won't you do this?
 * "I am Daniel Corcos" - Then you do have a possible conflict of interest. That doesn't forbid you contributing, but it means you need to be honest about it and demonstrate that you are not editing to promote yourself, your work or your opinions.
 * "What is your conflict of interest?" - I have none. No-one pays me. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then please cite it directly.: Corcos D, Bleyer A (January 2020). "Epidemiologic Signatures in Cancer". The New England Journal of Medicine. 382 (1): 96. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1914747. PMID 31875513. S2CID 209481963
 * This is the original study. But it also includes the reference for another study, showing the same results: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/238527v1.full As this other study is a preprint, it cannot be cited in wikipedia. Sergent Salt (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it has been pointed out to you enough times that your first cite there is to a letter in a journal, not a study. This letter may contain elements of your research, and obviously was considered to raise valid questions, but the study itself would be much preferred.  Where is it?
 * Your second cite seems to be a better proposition for inclusion, but I am not the person to make that judgement, and the fact it has not gone through peer-review is obviously a major sticking point that you appreciate. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "I think it has been pointed out to you enough times that your first cite there is to a letter in a journal, not a study. This letter may contain elements of your research, and obviously was considered to raise valid questions, but the study itself would be much preferred.  Where is it?"
 * The study is the figure in the Letter.Figure NEJM.jpg Sergent Salt (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but this figure is something you constructed to accompany your letter to the editor, right? If so, that's original research that itself hasn't undergone any peer review. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 15:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been accepted by the editor. Most letters are rejected. It's like an opinion paper. They are also not peer reviewed. The reference list of the wikipedia article contains opinion papers. Sergent Salt (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is clear here: Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information; for example, early lab results that do not hold in later clinical trials. A NEJM letter or the biorxiv article even after it has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal count as primary sources. We strongly prefer to use review articles and guidelines rather than citing individual papers. I can see no particular need to cite the Corcos paper. Bondegezou (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wrong. For instance, after searching for 5 minutes:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib
 * https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe068054 Sergent Salt (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sergent Salt: it is important to recognize that WP:OTHERCONTENT isn't really a strong argument, especially when it comes to content you seem to have a WP:COI with. Being a WP:SPA who comes right back here after a block to continue the same argument doesn't seem very constructive either. It appears that consensus here isn't in support of your insertion of your own opinion letter, and maybe that's just how it is and it is time to let it go. -- Zim Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to include the opinion letter that I from this discussion. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an opinion letter because it describes a study. I simply explained that you accept opinion letters that are not peer-reviewed. Sergent Salt (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The removed referecene's URL (at the very top of this thread) is https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31875513/, and if you click on the DOI you get to https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc1914747, which provides numerous opinion letters. Yours appears to be the 2nd one. While you might be referencing "a study" in your correspondence, the source that was removed was the letter. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 20:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, here is the study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mammography#/media/File:Figure_NEJM.jpg Sergent Salt (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, this appears (and you seemed to confirm) to be a chart you generated to accompany your letter to the editor. As pointed out repeatedtly, that's doesn't seem to align with our WP:RS or WP:MEDRS policies. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 21:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is how everyone works in descriptive epidemiology! Sergent Salt (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the Rofecoxib article is not following WP:MEDRS, that should be fixed. Wikipedia is a constant work in progress. There are always many articles with deficiencies. Deficiencies elsewhere is not a good reason to introduce deficiencies to this article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a deficiency.
 * These are the rules of Wikipedia: a large percentage of cited publications in medical Wikipedia are not peer-reviewed. What makes sense is where they appear. Sergent Salt (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant rules of Wikipedia here are WP:MEDRS. There is no point you ignoring this fact and repeating the same argument over and over. Bondegezou (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These Wikipedia rules are not used. For example, among many others, in the Wikipedia article on mammography, ref 26: "Study found that computer-aided detection was not currently effective in breast cancer screening, however new tools a  re being developed and should be evaluated."
 * https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta9060/#/abstract
 * This is an opinion based on one study! Sergent Salt (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the threshold for inclusion of a source that stands out on its own, making a very serious medical claim not supported by other sources, and indeed disagrees with other sources, is justifiably higher than others. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have replaced that citation in one place where it was used. I will look at the other. Bondegezou (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These ones are also primary works. All in the wikipedia article.
 * https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0803545
 * https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiology.179.2.2014293
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.29925 Sergent Salt (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This one too.
 * https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/30/3/538/5675557?login=false Sergent Salt (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This one too: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/1106067 Sergent Salt (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And this one:Ref 39 in arXiv!
 * https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02755
 * Primary work, not even validated by an editor.
 * I think the mammography article is very unique because it doesn't cite a lot of primary works, but you have a lot of work to do on Medical Wikipedia. Sergent Salt (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While an arXiv link has also been given, that citation has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, Physics in Medicine and Biology. The text being supported is not about a question of medical effectiveness, but about a technical matter, so it is a gray area with respect to WP:MEDRS. The citation does satisfy WP:RS.
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is plenty that needs improving, yes. You could help with doing this, rather than throwing a strop because we won't cite the letter you wrote. Bondegezou (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies then. But all the other references I cited are primary sources and there are millions of them in other medical Wikipedia articles as well. Do you want me to delete them all? Sergent Salt (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wish to make a contribution to Wikipedia, it would help if you were less combative towards others (see WP:AGF), looked to contribute across a broader set of articles, and paid attention to polices and guidelines (including WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, WP:NOTHERE and WP:CONSENSUS). Bondegezou (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just think the policy of removing primary sources from major medical journals is idiotic, that fortunately it's not actually done by Wikipedia, and that changes in guidelines are just excuses to censor embarrassing information (as for the Origin of Covid). Sergent Salt (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also commend WP:RGW to you. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Would like to draw attention to the fact that the offending content was just re-added by an new account (created one minute before the edit), this being its only edit. I find it very unlikely that an enitrely new account would stumble upon this edit war and happen to join in with Sergent Salt. Do we need to raise a sockpuppet investigation? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 12:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps appropriate to look into possible SOCK. There also was past evidence (since deleted as was outing accounts) of off-Wiki activity, so there could be folks coming in from elesewhere too. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 13:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noticed Sockpuppet investigations/Sergent Salt. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 15:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So what you do is censor the information with a concerted attack and you accuse the people who react of being sockpuppets. Sergent Salt (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is reasonable to be concerend about sockpuppettry given the circumanstances. You seem to be completely ignoring all the advice and policy guidance pointed out to you in this thread (before and after your block). I fear you're not here to work on a collaborative encyclopedia project. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 16:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I only contribute in areas that I know. Sergent Salt (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Please don't do it. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 16:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. No one is "censoring" you. And yes, given the information I laid out above sockpuppetry does seem to be a reasonable suspicion. Just seen the link to the report above, so retracting this. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 16:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The concerted attack is not a suspicion, it is reality. Sergent Salt (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you're not being attacked. We're just adhering to Wiki policy. This line of dialogue isn't going to get you anywhere; if you can't contributing cooperatively with other editors then WP:NOTHERE, as ZimZalaBim said, becomes more likely. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 16:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WikiProject Medicine Winter 2024 UCF COM
— Assignment last updated by Ji119302 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Work Plan
Lead Section:

- work on making this section more clear and understandable

- review content and sources

History:

- expand on history as it only describes up to 1966

Procedure:

- expand on the various procedures within mammography with emphasis on the 3D, photon counting, galactography

- include recent topics on AI softwares used to aid with mammography evaluation

Benefits

- include most recent data on benefits of mammography

When to start screening

- include most recent changes to USPSTF guidelines (May 2023) for mammogram recommendations.

Arguments against USPSTF recommendations/mammography

- evaluate content and reliability of sources Ji119302 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello! Just doing a peer-review through our course here so few comments below:
 * History- added additional sources here and more history- looks good. Does it need anymore or sufficient additions (I do not know, genuinely asking)
 * For a few sections you wrote that you would add, but I do not see any additions, below, were additions needed?
 * - Lead section- Did you add anything to this section? I agree, it is quite long and some of it may be more appropriately discussed within the bodies of the sections rather than the lead.
 * - Procedure- "- expand on the various procedures within mammography with emphasis on the 3D, photon counting, galactography"
 * - benefits- "- include most recent data on benefits of mammography"
 * Other thoughts/comments:
 * - AI section is well-written and has good data/evidence
 * - Edits to Scoring Section are clear and well-written
 * - Overall structure of article does not line up with Med MOS for medical tests (Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles)
 * - spot checked links- all worked that I checked
 * - old information about USPTF recommendations (links/sources from 3 different sets of recommendations from same organization- may be helpful to clean those up and just discuss most recent recommendations) Bdaines8 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great feedback! I realized that a few of the topics I wanted to expand on were already separate Wikipedia pages. I did not add additional information as I wanted to refrain from redundancy. I appreciate you providing the Med MOS for medical tests. I went through the article and moved topics around to reflect this guideline. However, while mammography is a medical test, I think it's important to emphasize its use as a cancer screening tool for public health reasons. Therefore, I placed "medical uses/benefits" and "screening recommendations" ahead of some other topics. In terms of editing the lead section, I have saved it for last as I want to provide a succinct section that summarizes the article but is also easy to understand.
 * Thanks again! Ji119302 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)