Talk:Microcephaly

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sabrinabulla, Amandabair, Knguyen525, NoraCortez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC) If the diagnostic criteria for microcephaly are that the individual be more than two standard deviations below the mean, then approximately 2.5% of births would be microcephalic (depending on how well "head size" maps onto a gaussian distribution). In other words, the incidence of microcephaly would be very near 1 in 40. This is in direct conflict with the 1 in 800-5000 births figure later in the same paragraph. Given that the first study is from 2002 and is itself a meta-analysis of the widely varying diagnostic criteria for microcephaly used at the time, it is possible that the past two decades have seen a change in the official definition of microcephaly. I'm not a medical professional, so someone with greater knowledge in that field would have to weigh in. Also, regarding the fact that the statistic of 1 in 800-5000 is for the United States specifically, I would point to the fact that many of the studies referenced in the 2002 meta-analysis were done in the USA or in other nations with similar levels of access to healthcare. Unless American babies somehow are 20 to 125 times less likely to be born with microcephaly than other babies, this contradiction means that one of these statistics is either wrong or out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8D80:990:74C6:483C:7ADA:5F1C (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What does two standard deviations below average mean? For us stupid people
"head circumfrance more than two standard deviations smaller than average for the person's age and sex." What is it to be two standard deviations below average? This isn't informative without telling us the average head size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.210.245 (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Take two standard deviations below the mean to refer to the bottom 2.3% of the population, 2.5 standard deviations (one proposed criterion for macrocephaly) the bottom 0.6%, and three standard deviations the bottom 0.13% (see this figure). To convert that to an actual measurement you need at a bare minimum the age (and preferably sex, race, etc.) and for that cohort the distribution of the relevant measurement (e.g. circumference, though two skulls with the same circumference could have very different brain volumes).
 * When the distribution is close to a bell curve or normal distribution, "standard deviation" is technically ok (and when it is exactly the bell curve the above percentiles are more precisely 2.275%, 0.621%, and 0.135% respectively). However I don't understand why percentiles aren't used instead since they're more intuitive, don't assume a bell curve, and are probably what the quoted standard deviation was inferred from anyway.  To be blunt it seems to me that "standard deviation" in these sorts of contexts is pointless jargon if not actual obfuscation.  9&sigma; below the mean is perhaps more meaningfully understood as about a tenth of a square inch of the Earth's surface (more precisely, a circle of diameter a third of an inch).  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this the same condition as Micrencephaly ? Is a merge required. GameKeeper 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed "gender" to "sex" because gender is often used now as a social construction of identity, versus the strictly biological significance of sex. aron 71.198.76.26 05:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To Mr./Ms. 71.198.76.26 - Sex is derived from physical characteristics. Gender from social constructs. In the context of this article, sex is appropriate as the patient's mental state has little to do with the circumference of their head. I would have reverted your edit if someone had not already done so.


 * You would have been foolish to do so since 71.198.76.26 is saying the same thing you are with greater subtlty. And the edit was not reverted. Paul B 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

H. floresiensis, not microcephalic human
Current evidence suggests that Homo floresiensis was NOT microcephalic, and for that matter, NOT human. Although a section about the now largely resolved debate might be warranted in this article, I have deleted the paragraph previously in this article claiming unequivocally that H. floresiensis was microcephalic. I have seen pictures comparing the different brain sizes, and they are very convincing. A microcephalic brain looks nothing like a H. floresiensis brain, and is more similar to that of H. erectus.

Homo_floresiensis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philolexica (talk • contribs) 05:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Diagnostic criteria
Are there any statistical data for skull circumference in adults (in particular communities) that would help determine whether someone who did not have a set of measurements plotted on a growth chart in childhood should be regarded as microcephalic? NRPanikker 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitions?
It seems to me that the same word is defined two different ways on this page, and it's confusing... I don't know enough about it to fix it, though. Anyone? Omgitsmonica 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Zip the Pinhead
On Zip the Pinhead's page it states several times that he was not microcephalic, though he was sometimes incorrectly thought to be. I'm going to remove him from the list of famous microcephalics, unless anyone has any objections. Shralk (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Current last sentence of first section
Suggest that mentioning a term to be discouraged actually preserves if not encourages it. 212.84.106.191 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Assertion of highest incidence rate in Pakistan
I am deleting the sentence "Islamic State of Pakistan has the highest occurrence of Microcephaly in Asia and Africa", as this should be backed by comprehensive scientific study of prevalent rates in countries of Asia and Africa. No such reference is included.

Microcephalic individuals occur in every society as they do in Pakistan. In Pakistan they are unusually more visible to public for reason explained below.

In rural areas of Pakistan there is superstitious culture (which has no origin in Islam) of leaving such children at a certain shrine in Punjab, being afraid of superstition that not doing so would make their forthcoming children also Microcephalic. From that shrine they are adopted by professional begging syndicates, who exploit their unusual disability to attract sympathy for begging. These syndicates take them for begging throughout their lives to different areas across Pakistan on rotational basis like once or twice a year in a given area for maximum begging revenues. This forced 'wide-coverage-begging' makes them highly visible to public in Pakistan. That higher visibility to public does not necessarily mean that Pakistan has higher incidence rate of Microcephaly, unless found by scientific study comparing different countries.

One of the reference of this same article states that there may be 1000 Microcephalic individuals in Punjab. If that is accurate (and the source acknowledges it may not be), with 82 million population of Punjab this translates to incidence rate of 1 per 820,000.

Also, whoever had wrote this sentence, next time you spew your venom against Islam or Pakistan, do know it is not "Islamic State of Pakistan”, it is "Islamic ***Republic*** of Pakistan". Mnyaseen (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also modifying following sentences,,,

'The slur "chua" (Urdu for rat) is commonly used against them in the Islamic state' (religiously/racially motivated stereotyping).

'the Pakistani government bans them from entering numerous places' (even per referred source government bans people leaving Microcephalic individuals at that particular shrine to break the begging syndicates exploiting them) Mnyaseen (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mental capacity?
Are microcephalics of less than normal IQ in every single case? Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Exaggeration
The following line under the 'other' heading is not supported by the reference: "After the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a large percentage of women who had been pregnant at the time gave birth to children with microcephaly." The reference merely states that SOME of the women pregnant at the time of the dropping of the bomb gave birth to babies with micocephaly, not that a large number or large percentage gave birth to children with the disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.64.106 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Image ist problematic
In my opinion, choosing an image of an african boy to illustrate microcephaly tends to be racist, because it reminds of 19th century "scientific" discussions saying that africans have smaller brains than europeans. I propose to change it. Maralui (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If i get good picture under free license i will try to replace it. -- Dr meetsingh  Talk  17:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dr meetsingh  Talk  19:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflict over Incidence of Microcephaly in in utero Hiroshima fetuses, &.
Paragraph disputing the 'large percentage' of post-Hiroshima microcephalic births directly contradicts source above. Furthermore, said paragraph is poorly written, clearly agenda-driven and is otherwise suspect.50.10.99.70 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Detail in this Article
Folks, this article sucks. There is a lack of detail. Several terms such as 'later in life' are undefined, there is very little detail on how the problem would imact sufferers in their daily lives, there is mention that survivability is low, but no data and no as ranges given. In other words the article is a sorry example of what is too often wrong with Wikipedia. You have to add more detail, along with the appropriate citations. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

207.152.103.38 (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)== Brazil ==

Saw an Al Jazeera report last night re Brazil warning against pregnancy because the Zika virus is apparently causing large numbers of newborns with Microcephaly. It sounded like a rapidly evolving topic of great significance, and someone with proper knowledge ought to insert a reference. It is also significant with regard to the Rio Olympics in a few months. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There are numerous academic articles on this, now. I'll add links to reports from ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) network) and from [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6503e2.htm MMWR. peter_english (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The references don't show any details on how the zika virus is linked to microcephaly. There appears to be no evidence other than circumstantial, and the virus has not been found in most of the cases in Brazil. 207.152.103.38 (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

US/UK/other pronunciations of microcephaly
Should the article address the different pronunciations used - specifically, is it a hard k, as in the UK, or a soft s, as in the USA?

With the surge of interest following the association (not yet proven to be causal) between Zika virus and microcephaly, the word microcephaly is being used a lot more by non-medics.

This has raised the issue of its pronunciation. I note that in North America it appears that the preferred pronunciation appears to be "microSephaly", whereas - at least at the medical school I went to - in the UK it is microKephaly.

There are reasons for using either, and as my interest in words precedes my interest in medicine I'm not a believer in pronouncements on what is "correct": the role of a lexicographer is to record current practice, and possibly to explain it, not to pass judgement. In brief, the word is from a Greek work, and in the original Greek, the letter transcribed as a c would be pronounced as a k; but as it's a c, and in English the usual rule is that a c followed by e or i is "softened" to sound like s...

Similar arguments arise around the word skeptic/sceptic (complicated by the fact that, while the original word was Greek with a k sound, it appears to have come into English from the French "sceptique", pronounced septeek).

I have not heard anybody say "etketera" rather than "etsetera"; though I suspect the "it's Greek so it should be a hard k sound" arguments might also apply here...

I note that the OED gives both pronunciations, whereas the US Merriam Webster just gives the American pronunciation.

I am told that in Israel - and I suspect perhaps also in Germany - the c is pronounced "ts" (like a German z).

peter_english (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 6a goals
The goals Group 6a has for this article:


 * 1) Update congenital and postnatal causes for microcephaly based on updated research and utilize reliable research to confirm causes. If a cause does not have strong evidence of causing microcephaly, indicate the lack of evidence. All sources found were the most reputable articles possible for the condition or cause.
 * 2) Review over the "other" section to ensure information is accurate and has reliable evidence supporting it.
 * 3) Clarify information under "signs and symptoms" and make sure the information could be understood by the general public. Use peer review to ensure material is easily understood. Use medical journals and published studies to update the "signs and symptoms" section.

Sabrinabulla (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note added editing tags for future use, FYI Health policy (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

changed a header from other --> historical causes of microcephaly to encompass a more narrowed focus of the section that has information about the effect of atomic bombs on microcephaly in the area literature is as up to date as could find, most current studies for the topic was in 1960s

Sabrinabulla (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Group 6C Peer Review
David's Peer Review Davdang (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Group 6A has made edits to the article that have improved the quality of the article. They used a good leading sentence for the symptoms section and expanded on the cause of microcephaly. In the treatment section of the article, group 6A made a contribution to amino acid treatment to provide symptomatic treatment of the disease. However, microENcephaly was used instead of microcephaly to describe the disease. Although microencephaly was used in the past to describe the condition, since the article is titled microcephaly, consistency throughout the article should be maintained.
 * 2) Group 6A delivered on their goals for this article. Contributions were made to the causes of microcephaly as well as contributions not mentioned in their goals such as the symptomatic treatment of microcephaly.
 * 3) Sources used were of high quality and from reputable organizations (Standford/Mayo Clinic).

Roy's Peer Review RwengUCSF (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Your group added useful information improving the overall quality of the article. I liked the addition of the incidence statistic in the beginning, as well as additions to the signs and symptoms, causes, and treatment. I also agree with Davdang's suggestions concerning consistency of language throughout the article.
 * 2) Your group successfully edited the article according to your goals. Signs and symptoms were edited in an easy to understand manner.
 * 3) Your group's edits were formatted consistently with Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

--- Rachel's Peer Review (Group 6C) AMONGxicillin (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Group 6A made improvements to the article by elaborating in the “signs and symptoms” section and transitioning to how neurological defects can lead to delayed motor functions and speech in infants. I also liked how Group 6A added how frequent microcephaly occurs in babies (in the introduction) to create an urgency of this topic.
 * Group 6A achieved 2 out of the 3 goals for improvement ( did not see edits regarding “other relations”).
 * Group 6A's draft submission reflects a neutral point of view.

Cindy's Peer Review

Group 6A made substantial edits to this article that greatly improved the quality of the article. They added a "historical causes" section as well as additional information about treatment. I liked the clarification in wording in the "Signs and Symptoms" section to make the section flow better. I did not find any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation.

Cindytrac (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold Me Mother, 2018 - Wellcome Photography Prize 2019.jpg