Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variable volume pharmacokinetic models


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Variable volume pharmacokinetic models

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to the author it may be elementary mathematics but doesn't meet GNG as a theory in pharmacokinetics. Appears to be citation spam for the author. The article is in contradiction of existing theories on pharmacokinetics and therefore this meets the definition of fringe science. Of the four references two do not mention this concept. The two that do are self citations. Neither has been cited in the academic literature outside of this. I think this theory may one day be notable but at the moment it is not. PainProf (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC) PainProf (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. PainProf (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PainProf (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: to be clear this is an alternative theoretical formulation and not pseudoscience but it doesn't appear to have any following other than the author. I did try to engage with the author but he couldn't provide further references. I'll obviously withdraw this if someone can find substantial independent coverage. PainProf (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Even without the self-references, there is a well established, and referenced thing called variable volume pharmacokinetics, i.e., . This is not spam. NO attempt has been made to add to or fix this article, just to destroy the content, which is a service to no one. More references can be added but not under duress. I was unaware of the rule that one cannot write about anything that one has published oneself. So what, the topic is still well documented. It could easily be changed, added to by others. PainProf engaged in a hostile fashion not following protocol. His self-proclaimed 'engagement' was answered and ignored. The information about half-life being also variable in time is what PainProf is referring to as "it" in the sentence "According to the author it may be elementary mathematics but doesn't meet GNG as a theory in pharmacokinetics." Variable half-life is an aside in this article, it can easily be removed. Its inclusion would make the article a lot stronger, and the combination of variable volume with variable half-life forms a powerful system of equations that generalizes variable volume. There are book chapters about variable volume modelling, and not mine either. It takes time to fix an article, and PainProf want instant gratification. CarlWesolowski (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * commentSource 1: The article is currently partly about how CarlWesolowski thinks this is wrong actually that's most of the article. Source 2 is primary research, in an adjacent field and doesn't discuss in these terms. Can you please provide the chapters I will look them up but if you don't help us find the evidence and I can't find it in pubmed then there isn't any way to fix the article. Just copy some references here to the book chapters, you are clearly an expert on the topic it shouldnt take too long if there are a lot. I am offering to take the time but you need to point in the direction of the sources.
 * Quote 'Perhaps the first drug centered variable volume model was created by Niazi in 1976 Niazi's equations were valid only for sums of exponential terms, that is, models that can also be considered to be compartmental models, and Niazi used the terms variable volume model and mammalian (Sic compartment'. So here for instance are you claiming that Niazi really meant a variable volume model but he was mistaken in his writing? That's original research it needs a secondary source. PainProf (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a reference that relies on volume changing during dialysis: Sinnappah KA, Kuan IH, Thynne TR, Doogue MP, Wright DF (2020) The pharmacokinetics of metformin in patients receiving intermittent haemodialysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. Disclamer: I cannot support the recommendations in that article. Citing it is problematic.
 * The following review of the metformin variable volume plus variable half-life paper was done without the input of any author at the time it was written, i.e., it was totally independent https://facultyopinions.com/prime/737178685#eval793569420. Its author only became a coauthor following that independent evaluation, so this is a secondary source. Worse, Niazi wrote to me as well, and wants to coauthor things with me now, so this independence you seek is fleeting, I cannot help it if what I write attracts attention after the fact. What Niazi wrote was perfectly correct, but only pertains to sums of exponential term models, which although the predominant model type in pharmacokinetics is limited in scope. The general equations cover a much larger range of models. "So here for instance are you claiming that Niazi really meant a variable volume model but he was mistaken in his writing?" No, Niazi was the first to specify variable volume models correctly, and I can give you references with mistakes in them as well, but Niazi made no mistakes whatsoever, all he didn't do is generalize his equations to be useful for all sorts of models. Does this help? From the metformin paper (Comparison...) "Those [sic, Niazi's] models were simultaneously compartmental models and variable volume models, but the interpretations of those different models are distinct. Niazi’s work was generalised by some of us for any density function supported on the time is on the [0,∞) interval having a varying apparent volume of drug distribution in time, Vd(t), with half-life expressions that vary in time [23]." For an introduction to variable volume models and fractals the reader is urged read reference: Macheras P, Iliadis A (2016) Chapter 7: emperical models. In: Macheras P, Iliadis A (eds) Modeling in biopharmaceutics, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics‘. Springer, New York, pp 161–189 So, what do you think happened when I wrote that? Dr Panos Macheras, the author, wrote to me strongly supporting the work. Look, this is a small field, but the best and the brightest in it are trying to shed light, Tucker, Niazi, Macheras, these are heavy-lifters with who collectively have written more than a thousand articles, chapters and books. You sure you don't want them in Wikipedia? CarlWesolowski (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 *  Change article name to Variable volume in pharmacokinetic models , broader concept is okay, problem is POV based establishment of a distinct model. It isn't a distinct model but an alternative formulation of other models, this isn't in of itself significant in multiple independent sources. Each source I found had some reference to it as a potential parameter of a compartmental or non-compartmental model. Dr Wesolowski is proposing a new model in his recent papers but that hasn't met notability yet as a distinct model per se. I offer to help Dr Wesolowski explain this better. If agreed I think we can close this. PainProf (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Contrary to this rename suggestion, I am going to say nuke it. While the concept of pharmacokinetics under conditions of variable volume is theoretically a valid topic (though the notability is iffy - there are all kinds of special conditions that affect a core model yet don't have the notability to merit their own individual treatment), what we have here bears little resemblance to what that would be. Since it would basically have to start from scratch anyhow, the the better approach is to do exactly that, start a new article from scratch rather than trying to transition this article into something different.  You can always work with CarlWesolowski on a new article draft off main-space and see whether there is sufficient reference material to write an article on the broader topic without synthesis, then bring it forward if it proves viable. Agricolae (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There are additional comments by CarlWesolowski on this article's Talk page. Per the above suggestion I agree after trying to make draft, there was insufficient material to do a full article at this stage. Therefore I withdraw my previous suggestion. PainProf (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have been engaging a little with the creator on the relevant Talk page, and am starting to think this was not only intended to publicize his own research, but also as a WP:SOAPBOX to set his formulation as a superior replacement to the standard model (which everyone accepts as a mathematical construct used to simplify complex physiology). This is not fringe, just a completely obscure special application that has only been studied singly in a small number of drugs, with no references to indicate there is a broader general formulation or that anyone outside of the sub-sub-sub-specialty working on it has noticed. Agricolae (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient independant coverage, plus as said, WP:SOAPBOX. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.