User talk:Grayhawk126

November 2018
Hello, I'm Zefr. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Cannabidiol, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''The research on cannabidiol is just beginning, and there is no certainty about its effects on neurons or brain function. For medical topics, high-quality evidence is needed, as described in WP:MEDRS. Please read and follow this guide. Thanks and good luck.'' Zefr (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why they are not reliable sources. I just went through a training with school on finding reliable sources. I'm supposed to use secondary sources such as a literature review. Two of the three are literature reviews, one is a study so I can take that out.
 * Here is a Wikiproject Medicine tutorial for new medical editors (please share with your class and instructor)
 * In WP:MEDRS under "Assess evidence quality" are two pyramids showing the hierarchy of sources expected on medical topics in the encyclopedia. Your edit here uses 3 publications on preliminary research findings rather than established clinical research evidence provided in a systematic review or meta-analysis of completed, high-quality clinical trials. Your edit is based on primary research many years from verification that the results are accepted by expert neuroscientists or clinicians. --Zefr (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did that training and saw the pyramid. I'm curious how you were you able to access the three sources and decide to remove the work in three minutes? I see you've been doing this a while so you're probably good at it. But I did use two reviews from medical journals, so please help me understand how those are not reliable sources. Thank you.
 * I read those articles some time ago, and am familiar with the overall evolving literature on CBD and the brain. The type of journal used, such as BJP or PLoS One, are basic science (lab research) journals, rather than clinical review journals. Looking at the MEDASSESS left pyramid, all three studies are in the pink base, i.e., lab studies (primary research done mostly in vitro or in rats), so are the starting point of CBD neuroscience research, having the lowest quality of evidence, and are too premature and unconfirmed for an encyclopedia. The content you added reads to the common Wikipedia non-science user like each statement is certain ("acts to protect", "reducing inflammation", etc.), whereas none of this has been shown in advanced basic research or in yet-to-be-done clinical trials (many years from completion). Stated in MEDASSESS: "...rely on high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews. Lower quality evidence (such as case reports) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided. Medical guidelines or position statements by nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies also often contain assessments of underlying evidence." These expert positions are not evaluated or available yet for the topics you discussed, so were inappropriate for the "Medical uses" section, nor would they be useful in the Research section because the studies remain at the earliest level of lab research. In the future if adding content for a new section, it's worthwhile to propose it first on the article talk page to get a variety of editor feedback before it goes to the article. Thanks and good luck. Remember to sign and timestamp your talk page comments using the signature icon above the edit box. --Zefr (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to sort some of these things out, because you have a series of statements followed by a series of sources. That makes it difficult for me to check your statements, and the level of nuance you have in them, against the sources.

As Zefr says, the problem has to do with the level of certainty. You're saying "Cannabidiol acts to protect neurons in a number of different ways." Campbell and Gowran say "Certain cannabinoids can protect neurons". Fagan and Campbell say "The neuroprotective capabilities of CB1 are suggested to act primarily on principal glutamatergic neurons". There's an important difference that's lost in the way you're saying things, including the fact that you can't use a source that talks about "certain cannabinoids" to speak specifically about CBD.

The Campbell and Gowran source is too old - it's from 2009. In a field as active as this, there's a good chance that stuff that was "suggested" a decade ago has either been further investigated, or probably hasn't panned out. The Esposito et al. source documents primary experimental research, so it's not an acceptable source either. Fagan and Campbell is just on the outer edge of the recommended age range, but Fagan and Campbell is really talking about CBD in the context of receptors, of in vitro studies, not really at a scale that warrants broad statements about neuroprotection. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I was just making sure it was a review in a medical journal. I've got so many projects happening at once it's hard to get everything straight.