Talk:Retrogenesis/Archive 1

Difficult Topic
We are trying to educate readers on what is currently known about the retrogenesis theory. In researching retrogenesis very few secondary sources were found based solely on the theory. We used Alzheimer's Disease review articles because that's where the information on retrogenesis was incorporated. There is not much out there on the topic because it is still under active investigation.Emnett1031 (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review by 7078kassels
I thought that the article was well written and included good information, though I would like to see some illustrations to make the concept a little easier to understand. Maybe you can include what an Alzheimer's patient's brain looks like compared to a normal brain or even just a picture of a myelinated axon, as some people might not know what that looks like. I was also curious as to how this hypothesis came about. Did they perform any experiments that lead them to come up with this theory? If you can find any information on that, I think that would be helpful to include in the Historical Background section. 7078kassels (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Under “Historical Background” I would suggest going into a little more detail on what important data and theories they have added to history instead of just naming the people. Under “theory” and “mechanisms”, you should link terms such as: neurulation and myelination. If you are not planning on explaining them, then you should definitely link them to another page. This will allow readers to have a better understanding of your topic.

Egaietto13 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Great job so far! It was easy to follow and understand. I suggest maybe expanding a little more on the history section because that could add great detail. I would also recommend adding some links to certain words that wouldn't be common knowledge - I would have like to have had the option to click on them for more information (ex. neurulation). Ksannch (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Ksannch

SecondaryReview
This definitely seems like a difficult topic to find secondary source information on, but it seems like you guys found a decent amount of sources. If it’s possible, I would suggest trying to beef up some of the sections you have and provide more content in general. The information that you have so far is great, just needs to be expanded upon. Some possible topics you could use as well could be in Pathology and Etiology, if there’s enough information. I would also suggest adding some pictures to your page as well. Nickcallard (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Nicholas Callard

Secondary Review by Clucy1994
I thought this was an interesting choice in topic, because it does have a limited amount that can be covered, since I am sure the Alzheimer’s disease page is well developed. One thing that I noticed while reading your article was that there was a lack of links throughout the middle and ending sections to other wiki articles. Also, I would suggest making the functional, cognitive, emotional, neurologic and neuropathologic sections their own subheadings under the heading of “mechanisms.” This would make them much more identifiable to the reader, and would also make them show up under the table of contents. Overall, it was well written with an especially informative introduction.

CLucy1994 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary Review by Mbozsik
I would recommend the authors of this article proofread before the final draft is submitted. Rightaway, I noticed there is a grammatical error in the first paragraph. I was confused why there was so much emphasis placed on Alzheimer’s in the first paragraph. This is distracting from the main topic. I would recommend maybe rearranging the article so that the focus of the introduction is on retrogenesis instead of addressing Alzheimer’s disease straightaway. I like the “Mechanisms” paragraphs. It is easy to follow and I enjoy that it is broken down into a coherent and understandable structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbozsik (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Mbozsik (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

secondary review
The introduction is well written along with the theory and mechanisms, but the historical background section throws me off. I think you guys should either delete it or add more to it. Also, I think you guys could use more sections and information in general about the topics presented, such as the treatments section. The paragraph ends saying that "one way way to prevent retrogenesis...", inferring that there are more ways. Present the other ways to prevent retrogenesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natek629 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary review
Overall, I had hard time understanding details of what retrogenesis is without searching for other websites for additional explanation. The leading paragraph gives a concise information about it; yet following topic paragraphs are way too brief. For example, I learned nothing in Historical background section. Additionally, I feel like since retrogenesis is still "ongoing and findings are under dispute", it would be great to mention what kind of information is lacking to fully understand what it is and what kind of others dispute about this theory. Lastly, it would be helpful to have any visual aid, or pictures, for better understanding.

Introduction section
The paragraph shows very good connection between retrogenesis and Alzheimer's disease. There are minor things that I want to point out. I think that it would be great to mention about treatment that is mentioned at the end of the article in introduction paragraph. Also, " tens of millions of people " sounds rather ambiguous. It would be great to either mention specific number or just not mention of the number.

Historical background paragraph
Like mentioned before, I am not sure what is the purpose of this paragraph. First, I have no idea who Braak and Braak are and what kind of background they have. There is no information of what the original theory was and how it was modified based on what kind of discoveries they found or errors they realized through advanced technology. How did those two derive this theory. How much can this theory be reliable knowing that there have been several modification made by others based on your paragraph? There is no information about historical background except few dates.

Theory section
In order to have better understanding of historical background, I think that it would be best for this paragraph to move up. It has some good points mentioned that enhance the knowledge of what this theory is about. However, I feel like there could be more details. There are only two things that are mentioned about this theory in this paragraph: first retrogenesis occurs to last neuron that is myelinated and it is the breakdown of myelin of white matter. Re these two the only thing about retrogenesis? Based on this paragraph, the theory is very unconvincing. Other minor thing would be setting up links for some of those specific terms like myelin and white matter.

Mechanism section
I think this section is very precise and easy to understand what kind of different mechanism is shown from the disease. I feel like it could have a little more detailed explanation about some parts. For example, in emotional part, it mentioned that the patients with AD resembles infant or children's emotional level. It would be easier for the readers to understand what emotion is lost and what are the infant emotion that differ from adults and so on.

Treatment section
The treatment section of the article is rather tricky since there still are no right solution to cure AD. However, this article mentioned good point about possible approach. I think something that could enhance this section of the article would be mentioning why there are difficulties finding a cure. There must be something that is making hard for people to discover treatment.

--Jungi0714 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review of our article. We took some of your suggestions into consideration. We added more information to the historical background section to show that it is a new hypothesis. To this section, we added information about the FAST tool that ties the theory section together with the historical background section. We also added in links to other Wikipedia articles such as myelin and neurodegeneration. There is no cure for AD, but retrogenesis is a theory for treatment of AD. In other words, how to care for the patient experiencing symptoms of AD. Thank you again for your helpful review!Emnett1031 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review
I understand that this topic is very closely related to Alzheimer's disease, which has a very large page on its own, and is still a hypothesis that in the works. However, I felt as though this article was very vague with specific reference to the opening paragraph and the Historical background section. Even after reading the opening paragraph, I had a hard time actually determining what retrogenesis was. I would take one of your sentences from the Neurologic and Neuropathologic section of the Mechanisms section ("Parts of the brain that are last to develop during childhood are the first to be affected during AD") and word it into the opening paragraph. I think that would make it easier to understand the aspects of myelin breakdown and axonal degradation that you reference later on in the article. Another thing I noticed right away was the lack of wikipedia links for subjects that you brought up, specifically myelination, white matter, neurulation, etc. This is just a technical issue so it's not a huge problem. I thought that the theory paragraph was very easy to understand and thought that it was one of the better paragraphs in the article. For the Mechanism section, the cognitive, emotional, and biomolecular sections are lacking and leave something to be desired. There is a lack of a detailed scientific explanation that backs up the mechanisms, leaving them empty. If you can, I would look further and see if you can find something that would explain some of these mechanisms. I do understand there is limited information on this topic and I can imagine there not being a lot of information on the specifics of the mechanisms. I checked reference #1 or the "Integrating Retrogenesis Theory Model..." article and found that it was a very solid review article covering the basics of retrogenesis, what it includes, different hypothesized appraches, etc. One thing I found in the article that that would be a beneficial addition to the article would be the Wallerian Degeneration Model. Reading that portion gave more detail and personally helped me understand the mechanism behind retrogenesis better.

Mmaggay (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)mmaggay
 * Thank you so much for your review of our article. We felt as though your comment about adding the sentence "Parts of the brain that are last to develop during childhood are the first to be affected during AD", is mentioned in the second paragraph about the introduction. There is says that atrophy and development of the brain occur in opposite order. This means that the development of an infant brain occurs in the opposite order as a person with AD due to degeneration. We added in more Wikipedia links for myelin and neurodegeneration, among other things. There is not much information on the mechanisms section, but we tried to add in a little bit more information. We also added citations to those sections that we forgot earlier. When looking at the Wallerian Degeneration Model, this model is the opposite of retrogenesis. Retrogenesis deals with the break down of white matter, whereas the Wallerian Degeneration Model deals with the breakdown of gray matter. Again thank you so much for your helpful review!Emnett1031 (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review
I especially liked the introduction to this article. It gave a quick definition of retrogenesis, but also an overview of Alzheimer’s disease. It is heavy on Alzheimer’s though, so I would suggest incorporated retrogenesis in more. While the historical background section provides information on how it is a relatively new hypothesis, it could use a little more content. What did Reisberg and Bartokis contribute to the model? The introduction gave an overview of the theory, but I liked how the specific theory section clarified it and provided more details. I would, however, consider rewriting this sentence, “As the brain develops during early childhood development, begins with neurulation and ends with myelination”. It got the message across, but I stumbled on it while reading. For the mechanisms section, it was nice that it included different approaches to mechanisms, but I was confused by the header, mechanisms of what? I would also add to the treatment section because there has been a lot of research for the treatment of Alzheimer’s. In regards to sources, citations are throughout the article and information seems to be properly cited. I did notice that the neurological and biomolecular lacked citations though so this should be added. Although more information could be incorporated into the article especially in the historical background and treatment sections, the overall article is fairly broad. The authors did note in the talk page that not much research was found which is not surprising because retrogenesis is a newer theory. This was accounted for in writing this review. Although not many secondary sources were found, the article is written very neutrally. The authors did not include an article, but I can see why it would be difficult to find a place for one because retrogenesis is a theory. Perhaps they could use a myelinated axon or white matter because of the decrease of these important components are thought to be due to Alzheimer’s. I took a look at the second source: “Evidence and mechanisms of retrogenesis in Alzheimer's and other dementias: management and treatment import”, which provided a lot of information of the theory of retrogenesis along with treatment. It was not a secondary source, but other reviewers looked at the two secondary sources and the authors noted they had difficulties with finding information. Since it did provide a substantial amount of information, I suggest included more details about the theory and management. For instance the authors included different sections of retrogenesis such as cognitive and emotional. 9260konetzf (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 9260konetzf (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your review of our article. We added a bit more to the introduction paragraph about retrogenesis in order to break up all the AD content. The historical background was also changed in order to give more information about the theory and what has come out of it. The "As the brain develops..." was also changed to make more sense. The mechanism header was also changed to "Developmental Stages" to make it more clear that the categories listed restates of the theory that a patient with AD goes through. Citations were also added where needed. A few images were also added in to make understanding parts of the theory a bit easier. Thank you again for your helpful review!Emnett1031 (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary Review
1. Well written: Overall, the article was well written and concise with few grammar and spelling errors.

2. Verifiable: All references were linked at the bottom of the article and are all pretty recent. I verified source number 3, which discusses degeneration in Alzheimer's disease. This particular source provided solid information regarding Alzheimer's but not too much on the term retrogenesis. I did notice how this source was only used for your background section. It was mentioned how there are critics to the retrogenesis theory. Maybe there are other sources that explain there arguments against the theory?

3. Broad in coverage: I understand your group's concerns on this topic since it seems like a difficult topic to discuss. It relates closely to Alzheimer's disease, which makes some of the points in the article focus more on the disease rather than the theory. This made it difficult for me to understand the meaning behind the actual term but I understand that this is a fairly new topic with little information on it as it is.

4. Neutral: The article gives an unbiased opinion. Again, if you state that there are critics against this theory (as said in the historical background section), it might be helpful to raise what those criticisms are to help expand one's knowledge on the subject.

6. Images: There are no images on the topic but maybe an image of white matter atrophy in the brain or axonal damage may be helpful.

Other notes: With the limited amount of sources provided on this topic, this article was still well written. More links on key words may be helpful for those who are not familiar with scientific jargon. It's hard to have a treatment section for this topic since it's treatment for Alzheimer's and not for retrogenesis, but I am not too sure as to how to address this due to the lack of sources on the issue.

Jxl579 (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing our article. The article was read through and grammatical errors were fixed in order to make the article flow more. We chose not to talk about arguments to the theory because we did not want it to lead to any bias. In the introduction, we tried to add in a couple of sentences to explain the theory a bit more as a degeneration of the brain experienced by AD patients. Images were added in order to make understanding the theory a bit easier. Thank you again for your helpful review!Emnett1031 (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Source?
What is the complete citation for this source: "Carson, Brenner (2015). Care Giving for Alzheimer's Disease. New York Academy of Sciences.". I cannot find it to verify the content. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This source is a physical book.Emnett1031 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the complete citation for source? Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this better: Brenner Carson, Verna (2015). Caregiving for Alzheimer's Disease. New York: Springer New York Academy of Sciences. pp. 1–9. ISBN 978-1-4939-2406-6.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnett1031 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes that is a complete citation. i had looked for the source on the incorrect earlier information and I couldn't find it. use complete citations always. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing
is a comment (not a review) and should be used gingerly, and ideally not at all. is a review from 2009 that isn't cited here. For what its worth is a review from 1974 that mentions this term; might be useful for some historical background. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You folks are giving more and more WEIGHT to your absolute weakest source. The 2002 source is not MEDRS compliant; it is a comment. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be most helpful if you pointed out why you think it is not MEDRS compliant. It does not present original research so it is not a primary source.  It is from a reputable journal.  I also don't understand your definition of "comment".  This is way to lengthy with too many references to be referred to as a "comment".  In looking over the source I can see how it shows bias.  However, as I understand the idea of not introducing bias, since there are so few secondary sources and none with contrary opinions were found, then it is up to the editor to make this clear in the article rather than to ignore the source altogether.  MMBiology (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Readdition of Treatment
We wanted to reapply the treatment section to our article. We believe that it is a treatment of AD according to retrogenesis. We would change the subheading from "Treatment" to "Treatment of AD through Retrogenesis" as it is only theorized that this treatment can work. 104.181.212.36 (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is WP:UNDUE - the whole article is about a hypoethetical process, that in turn might explain Alzheimers. A yet-third level of hypothetical treatments based on this hypothesis is UNDUE.  On top of that, this is sourced to the weakest source you have - a 12 year old "comment" which fails MEDRS by a very long way. And if you read that source, this proposed treatment is completely handwavy; no biology, no data.  No indication that anyone independent of these people have taken this seriously.


 * Possible Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease through Retrogenesis
 * Currently, there is no cure for Alzheimer's disease but there are hypothesized procedures to treat it. This is due to similar properties of non-nervous system tissues with the nervous system when it comes to mitogenic properties. Non-nervous system tissues have a neoplastic response to toxins or stressors. This neoplastic response is also known as a mitogenic response that replenishes cells that have died from carcinogens. One way to prevent retrogenesis is to introduce antineoplastic agents to decrease the amount of neurogenesis, neurofibrillary changes, and the possibility of apoptosis to occur.


 * -- Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful review. We realized that we needed to reword this section in order to make our point clear. We appreciate your comments and helpful advice. Kclarke11 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The key would be to find a recent review article that discusses this as a treatment option. In the last fourteen years, odds are that there has either been some development on the topic or that it isn't a viable treatment option. Whatever the reason, if there's nothing recent about it, it's best not to include it. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

POV
The lead says "While research is ongoing and findings are under dispute, multiple studies have remarked that individuals find that the loss of life skills, memory related abilities, and general engagement with intellectual pursuits associated with Alzheimer's disease feature an odd parallel to the personal growth that are in infants and children. "

There is nothing in this article about "findings are under dispute" nor even what those receptive to the hypothesis see as challenges. It fails NPOV on that alone. That sentence also contains the other POV aspect of this - " multiple studies have remarked that..." is trying to "sell" the theory, and most of the article is doing that too.

I generally don't tag and run but these issues are going to require a ton of work to fix. I will try to get to that. In the meantime hopefully others will consider these things too. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this review. It made us realize that this sentence was not clear and biased. We appreciate your help and will be making a change. Kclarke11 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you are not getting it. Every source here is from "believers."  I believe this is a very minority view on Alzheimers but this article doesn't reflect that, at all. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My students had a hard time finding secondary sources and found none that directly disputed the hypothesis or they would have included it. They are not trying to "sell" the theory as they have no personal interest invested in it.  Since you seem so knowledgeable, why not suggest an appropriate source from the viewpoint?MMBiology (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

With regards to how mainstream this is, I noticed that Vinters (2015) seems to take it as acceptable in an Annual Review of Pathology article, albeit based on a citation of his own work from 2012. I don't know how it stands in medical fields, but in fields I'm familiar with, Annual Reviews are well respected, mainstream sources. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Draftify
This article is not ready to be live, and you people are making it worse. this edit screwed up the formatting of refs so that now points to. You are not checking your own edits after you implement them.

How about if I move this to draft space so you can finish working on this in peace? Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC


 * Jytdog, please read the email I sent directly to you. This page is being edited as part of a class project.  My students need to finish their edits by tonight and you are making it worse.  As to removing it to a draft page, moving into mainspace was approved by Ian, a Wikipedia content expert for the Wikieducation foundation.   MMBiology (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be worked on in draft space, and actually should be developed there. it is not really ready to be live. because this "live" it is open to the community.  I could nominate it for deletion for example.  I think it would be best if we moved this to draft space; i would prefer to get your consent for that than go through the whole rigamarole of an AfD.  Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been doing this with a class as part of the Wikipedia Education Foundation for 4 years. For the past two they have asked to have a Wikipedia content editor review students' articles prior to putting them in mainspace (all students in the program, not just mine). This article was approved by the content editor around the end of March.  We have always been told to put it in mainspace even if it is not entirely perfect so that other Wikipedia community members such as yourself could contribute to the process.   I have not extensively reviewed it myself because my students are told they have until the deadline (midnight tonight) to edit before I look at it for grading purposes.  I have looked over some of your comments and I actually do not entirely agree with you on all but I will be honest in that I need more time to look through it before I make that determination.  I am in the middle of writing reviews of graduate student proposals and will not look at it any more tonight.  Therefore, I ask not to move it to draft space at this time. In particular I would like our Wikipedia editor to weigh in on the situation. It is a difficult topic because it is merely a hypothesis and there were not many secondary sources for my students to use.  My students are all told that the ideal Wikipedia article is based on secondary sources that are as current as possible.  With odd topics, that can be a challenge.  In that case I bend and allow some older sources if nothing else is available. I work with them on using pubmed, etc.  MMBiology (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am uninterested in drama. In your email you said the class project ends tonight. So tomorrow I will treat this like any other article.  I hear that you don't consent to draftifying so I will consider deletion and other options when I get back to this article.  I see that you have taking to Ian at WMF - I will reach out to him to correct your misunderstandings about mainspace in Wikipedia  Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I undid your change because the clock on Wikipedia is in UTC, it was not yet midnight here when you you made the changes and I wanted a printout as it stood when the students were finished. I also am not interested in drama.  As I grade the article I will be looking through your comments as well.  My students are required to follow the five pillars and to strive for Good Article status.  However, no other Wikipedia editor in the many articles I have done, has been so quick to modify the students' work before they were finished.  That is the whole point of putting the education banner at the top of the talk page.  MMBiology (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The banner is not an "I WP:OWN this" sign. Drafting is for draft space or userspace - you can have all the privacy you want there.  See my note above, where I offered to move this out of mainspace so you could have the environment you wanted.  This is not it. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, this article was live, in a less well-developed state, before the class started working on it. And the original drafting was done in a sandbox. I realise that you're frustrated here, but I don't think making comments about AFDing an apparently notable topic is the best thing here. No one is going to listen to what you have to say if they feel like they are being pushed around by someone who knows the system better than they do. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian. Thanks for pointing out that this was a stub that the class developed. I wasn't aware of that. This is a real clash of perspectives, isn't it.  The class was looking for a project, found this stub and adopted it, and growing the article and doing their course work became interwoven.  I came across this as I do many articles and from my perspective of our suite AD articles and what the literature says about AD and about this topic, this article should not exist, or should exist in a very different framework that shows how marginal this is. They see me as interloper and I see them as OWNING a bad piece of real estate.  I saw draftication as a way to resolve that. Hm.  Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Degenerative Mechanisms
These degenerative mechanisms are subsets of the different areas of the body that the theory of retrogenesis addresses.


 * 'Functional Mechanism'

The FAST (Functional Assessment Staging Tool) procedure is used by caregivers to observe and measure brain progression of patients. The developmental age (DA) is used as a tool in the FAST procedure to compare Alzheimer's Disease with normal brain development. The procedure shows a correlation between brain progression and hippocampal volume loss, cell loss, and neurofibrillary changes of deceased Alzheimer's patients. The mechanism of functional retrogenesis describes the digression of normal human development. This digression happens in the mental processes in a patient with Alzheimer's Disease (AD).


 * Cognitive Mechanism'

In patients with AD, cognitive capacity is reversed and follows a similar path as that of functional retrogenesis. The developmental age in AD is about the same for loss of both cognitive and functional capacity.


 * Emotional Mechanism'

Infant and children's developmental ages often exhibit similar emotional and behavioral changes as individuals with AD. During infancy, children progress through development by crying, smiling, and beginning to speak a few words. Retrogenesis explains how severe AD patients, who have lost most advanced functions, are still able to retain these infant emotions.


 * Neurologic and Neuropathologic Mechanism

Developmental reflexes from infancy have been found to occur during stages of AD. The development of reflexes has been found to be indicators of AD stages. Parts of the brain that are last to develop during childhood are the first to be affected by AD. Axons which were developed last are less myelinated than those that were developed previously. Axons with less myelination are more susceptible to degradation due to AD.


 * Biomolecular'

Neurons responding to degradation seek to generate anew through the activation of molecules important in the development of mitosis. Brain regions that undergo the most activity are most susceptible to mental degradation.

-- Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)