# Talk:Osteogenesis imperfecta

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JillianSherer, Camella Mangum, Ncw1995, GhostRider18.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A bit more on the actual genetic causes would probably be apporpriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.132 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 
I have OI, and I'm generally good with that. I hope my edits are not biased because of that though. I think all I added was history of research, I hope I didn't copy that medical site too much, and the name Michael J. Anderson. To be honest I didn't know he was OI and I was hesitant to put him in. However the NY Times, IMDB, and the site for a movie he did were just three of the places to say it so it seems fairly solid. It's not unusual for OIs to strengthen in adulthood. Almost all of my fractures occurred before I was 14. (Although I still can't walk) If I briefly mention OI to the page on him would that be acceptable or too activist. I really am not any kind of activist of anything so wouldn't want to offend.--T. Anthony 06:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Your edits are very welcome and have certainly added some good content to the article.  I started it off a while back knowing very little about OI, so it's nice for someone that clearly knows what they are talking about to come along and expand it.  As for Michael J. Anderson, I would agree with adding some information there as those three sources are reputable enough to show that it's true, and it is therefore an important part of his life.  violet/riga (t) 06:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Linked to the French one which seems to be the oldest of the four, and one of the best done perhaps. Although they spell it like "Osteogenie Imparfait"--T. Anthony 17:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I took that off because I don't see what that's referring to. I have OI and most everything in this is mostly mainstream. The article has in least 8 citations and more now. There are some things about hormonal issues that strike me as a bit off, but the little citation { {fact} }(take out spaces) should've sufficed there.--T. Anthony 07:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has no reference section, and a few external links to show which famous people have the disorder. Listing a basic reference text and other sources that were used to write the article would be a good start.--nixie 08:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well okay, but there really aren't many texts on this. It's a condition that effects 1 in 15,000 people. Most of the books I find are long out of print. I certainly prefer books to links, but in this case that's not quite plausible. Still I tried on that.--T. Anthony 08:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding all those refernces.--nixie 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. You do know though that I haven't read any of those books and it's mostly still based on the links, correct? I did take out links to non-scholarly places though.--T. Anthony 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

5/10/06: I'm a 4th year medical student working in a pathology lab, and I came across OI classifications that I had been unfamiliar with.  I reviewed multiple pathology textbooks as well as the most recent literature (2 new references added.)  Based on what I discovered, I expanded upon the classification system outlined in Wikipedia.  Hope it is helpful and/or consistent with others' literature surveys. -Andrew
12/19/06: I noticed that someone changed the order of severity of the classifications from "Type I is the most common and mildest form, followed by Type IV, Type III and Type II." to "Type I is the most common and mildest form, followed by Type II, Type III and Type IV."  While the latter/current statement is numerically chronologic, it suggests that Type IV is the most severe form.  To the best of my review of the pathology texts, such is not the case, and the former sentence is more accurate. -Andrew

T. Anthony:
My uncle has OI and I have always been curious to learn more about the disease, that's why I chose it for my topic for my paper. I am wondering if you can help me with any more sources or any other information that might be useful for my paper. Everything I am finding is loaded down with so much medical terminology that I am having a hard time deciding what to write. Thanks.AngiH 02:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Curiously I was not particularly interested in my condition until adulthood. It's just what I am, like being blue-eyed or a male. Anyway I'm assuming you checked the OIF correct? There's also OIF Europe which you might try. There are OIs with blogs and websites, in fact I think it might be fair to say there's a disproportionate amount of that. OI has no effect on intelligence, although there's disputed evidence that indicates we our average intelligence might be a bit better than average, but some of us are severe enough to be homebound for much of the time. Some I find are Wheelmansplace, Beyond Independence (A NASA engineer's site, All about Dave (he also has epilepsy, and many others. This article is also relatively good all things considered. Basically the main concerns for us are accidents and respiratory problems. I personally find advantages to it, but what advantages there are vary from person to person. Some OIs are "emotionally upbeat" compared to average people, I am and some studies indicate this is unusually common, but it is very far from universal. I've only rarely heard of OIs with clinical depression, but this might be my lack of knowledge, but I have heard of OIs who are depressed because of isolation or pain. This is all very anecdotal though, but you seemed to indicate you wanted less clinical.--T. Anthony 09:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone should edit the section that says Bisphosphonates do not affect adult OI patients. BP do increase bone mass in adults who are no longer growing; OI is no exception. BPs decrease bone resorption, leading to an overall increase in bone density. They are used for this purpose to treat osteoporosis in adults. 
I'll get to it when I next get a chance, otherwise someone else can feel free to jump in. Dr Aaron 07:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
in the treatment section, there is a para on fosamax and then a section heading for bisphosphonates.  would make more sense to put the fosamax stuff under bisphosphonates (as it is one)?   kieran bowdren 19.09.09 Bowdren (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I came across this page through Recessive-Dominate genetics and genetically linked diseases, and this disease sounds very similar to something that affects my mother, sister, uncle, and affected my grandfather.  It's known that the disease is hereditary, and dominant, it has caused weak bones among all of them, my mother in fact had a vertebra collapse simply from breast-feeding (after that she was told that she needed her calcium more than her newborn babies need natural breast milk.)  My sister also has had numerous fractures throughout her life.  A bone density test on my mother showed that she had density drastically and significantly under that necessary to diagnose Osteoperosis (surgeons repairing a fracture of her femur told us that it was like drilling into sugar cubes), and my sister at the age of 25 had a bone density scan that showed her to have the bones of a healthy 80-year old.
Although the primary issue is similar, (the weakness of bones, and their insufficient generation) There are quite a few symptoms.  As those suffering from this disease in my family are relatively healthy otherwise, it is definitely not similar to Type II.  As there is no known loss of hearing, nor a drop off of fractures after puberty, while accounting for the fact that they are simply more careful now.  People don't go around pushing my sister off her tri-cycle anymore, and neither are people jumping on my mother's back.
But they are certainly just as susceptable to breaks, as evidenced by my sister falling simply from ice-skating and breaking her femur (again), and my mother falling in an airport from a people-mover at ground level to floor and breaking three limbs, sparing her right arm only because she was reaching out trying to catch herself.
There is also no bone disformity, the bones appear otherwise completely healthy.
In many ways this disease is similar to OI, and would certainly fit the meaning of the phrase "Osteogensis Imperfecta", but does not share many of the other effects that are related to OI.  In many ways, it seems to impact similarly to and with symptoms that are much more like Osteoporosis, except not being age-related, and is definitely genetic.  It's also known that it correlates with  Hyperphosphatasemia after puberty but not before.
Would anyone with OI, or knowledgable of OI be able to say if it would be typical to have high levels of Alkaline Phosphatase after puberty but not before?  The big related causes to hyperphosphatasemia, and related to bone disorders appear to be Paget's disease, and cancers of the bone (of which this is certainly not cancerous), and Paget's disease appears to not be genetic at all, and beside that, it is said to be rare in people under 40 years of age, I would think it unusual to have 4 people in a direct bloodline have paget's disease from the age of about 5.
Could anyone help me out with any information?

I've posted an answer on your talk page.
Dr Aaron 02:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning of Season 5 of Scrubs (TV series), doesn't Elliot have an OI fellowship at a different hospital? And if so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the Potrayal in popular culture section? Mmace91 21:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't watched the show faithfully, but apparently she does have something like that.[1]--T. Anthony 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My nephew has this and it has also been determined that he has a high tolerance for pain. I was wondering if this is common among OI patients. Because of his high tolerance, and lack of family history, his condition was not detected until he was nearly two years old, and not until after he was taken away from his family under accusations of child abuse. I believe a section on accusations of child abuse should be added as I understand it is pretty common. I'd add it myself but due to my family's experience I wouldn't be able to write it NPOV.nut-meg 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm 16 and have OI and I too have a high tolerance of pain. My theory is that since we(people with OI) are born with this desease just naturally build a higher pain tolerance with each addional break. That being said, even though I have a higher level of tolerance I am still taking Pain killers such as fentanyl patches.
I'm also 16 and have OI and I agree with the above.  I definitely cry a lot but if I break something, I don't cry about it or anything.  Naturally, I feel pain, but I'm so used to the pain that I try to handle situations instead of focusing on any pain.  I also tolerate every other kind of pain better than others.  Perhaps this is just tolerance we acquire over time or could there be some research conducted? --Smaaaaash 06:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We should add that there have been cases of kids being taken for there parents because Social Services thinks that the parents are abusing the kids when in fact the kids suffer from OI. I will start to work on it soon. Fswiergul 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My family went through that. It was a nightmare, and I thnk it is an important aspect of this disease. Awareness is key. nut-meg 15:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
On the flipside there has been a few parents who claimed their kid had OI to get out of abuse charges, but then they found out the kid didn't. Also I know of at least one case where the kid had OI and she was the victim of abuse. (Her Mom flipped out and threw her down a staircase. (That story can not be put in the article as it's anecdotal, but cases of abusers falsely claiming OI are recorded)--T. Anthony 10:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Death before the age of 25 is common in Type IV, due to the increased pressure on the body from the curved spinal column. When a person with Type IV develops, all the organs are pushed into a body that is smaller and malformed, due to constant breaking. When the spine pressure is combined with organ pressure, the patient suffers a massive heart attack and dies."
-Is there a source/reference for this claim? I haven't seen it in any clinical research. Most research indicates that type IV life expectancy is normal or near normal. I'm going to remove this until a source is identified.

I was thinking we should add not everyone with OI fits perfectly into the types. I have had OVER 400 breaks and rebreaks, had to get my spine fused because of because of servere spine curvature, was born with multible freature in defferent stages of healing. But I don't have discolouration of the sclera,Loose joints, Poor muscle tone or hearing loss. I just think it would be nice to add.

Fswiergul 14:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if someone added (in the popular culture references section) a mention of the "30 Rock" episodes in which
a character had Avian Bone Syndrome.  From Google results, it appears most people don't realize there is a real condition that
that is based on (although portrayed in a wildly inaccurate way).  68.162.136.251 (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently the article reads "Save for the increased risk of fatal bone fractures, life expectancy is normal".  This isn't true though, 25% of people who have type I suffer from Basilar Invagination, which left untreated will often progress to fatality.  The only study I can find on life expectancy is from the BMJ which shows life expectancy reduced by about 5 years at birth, but up to 10 years accounting for margin of error.  While this comes from a reputable source, the doctor who published is rather less reputable.  I have changed the sentence to "Life expectancy is slightly reduced compared to the general population due to the possibility of fatal bone fractures and complications related to OI Type I such as Basilar Invagination." BigTurnip (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Basilar Invagination is, and the wikilink is dead. I suggest a few things. One, find out if there is another name for Basilar Invagination. If there is, and Wikipedia has an article on it, create a redirect page. Two, you need to cite this bit about life expectancy. You have some specific facts. Where did this information come from? nut-meg (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking it up it seems to refer to the spine and brain stem, which kind of freaks me out as I bend my neck backward when using the computer.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"Basilar impression". It's not just a type I problem -- actually it's more likely for the more severe cases because then the bottom of the skull is softer. If it's mentioned as a potentially lethal complication, then it should be taken as a potential issue for all OI patients. HuckFinn (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

When my Mom first saw him she thought he had OI, but I didn't really. However the sources seem to indicate he does so I added him. I hope I'm not jumping the gun here.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he does have OI Type 1.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.186.125 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 

There are currently two "Diagnosis" sections right next to each other. I suspect there should only be one, and perhaps they can be merged together, but I don't have enough knowledge of this subject to feel comfortable editing them. Nevertheless, is there any reason why there should be two of the same section in this article? Metheglyn (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right. There is no need for two diagnosis sections and they should be merged. I'll work on correcting this issue in the future. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I added a link to the Care4BrittleBones foundation and it got deleted. Why? Timkro (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:ELNO, as I linked in my edit summary? Note also WP:ELOFFICIAL says:
"Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article cannot control the information being presented.
If you believe this website is an exception to these guidelines, please explain.-gadfium 09:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not mentioned in article. 31.53.185.104 (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no references showing notability thus I have removed this long list of trivia [2]
We are not here to watch tv shows and then list if disease X appears in it. IMO this is not encyclopedic. Second issues is that it is not verified. And third issue is that it is original research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these points , it seems original research and not verified...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00728-X JFW | T@lk 16:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't really great in the way that it approaches types. As our understanding of genetics have improved, as has our understanding of the causes of this disease, the types have changed. There were three main eras of types. In the first era, let's say 1895–≈1960, there were only two types: tarda and congenita. After that, the numbering system came into play. But it was all based on clinical traits. After around the 2000s when genetics were finally usable as a diagnostic criteria, the types started to get mapped on to specific mutations. So a lot of people have a clinical type and then a genetic type. And still more people don't know their genetic type because a lot of insurance companies don't consider it important information in terms of treatment. There are also far more than 10 classified types now. I believe that the last OI Foundation meeting I sat through one of the doctors stated that there were 24 types classified as of 2019. We need to totally rethink how this article approaches types. There's a historical lens to all this that is being ignored. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe that User:Bonelink is a representative of the OI Foundation, as [redacted]. They added some statements about the OIF which I reverted, and I posted a message to their talk. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 20:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Right then......

.... is a group of genetic disorders that mainly affect the bones - weird sentence as it goes from singular to plural. Trying to think how this can be reworded. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it not better to describe as a clinical syndrome of variying severity, caused by dozens of distinct genetic abnormalities, as the name is unitary?
avoid 1-2 sentence paras
NB: I'd go to GA first before FAC. This could be challenging....more later - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: I took another crack at the lead: [3]. I also submitted to WP:GAN, finally having completed Apers0n's ancient todo list. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a thought, but Samuel L. Jackson played Elijah Price/Mr. Glass in "Unbreakable" and "Glass". How about adding that to the "Society and culture" section or maybe a new section of "in pop culture" or something? He is quite a character. 84.63.45.187 (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@84.63.45.187: I don't think this is appropriate. The content is already at List of people with osteogenesis imperfecta § Fictional cases. I have amended the page to make it more clear that this section exists in the target article. To add content like this to the main article needlessly prioritizes some depictions over others (WP:GLOBAL), it also implies that one depiction or another may be good. (Mr. Glass hardly has a realistic case.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Osteogenesis imperfecta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 11:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Happy to pick this up. You've done a lot of good work on this that I've watched occasionally from WT:MED, and a quick skim leaves me with a positive opinion. Apologies if I take some time to circle back with a review and bring it to completion; punctuality isn't always my best quality these days, but I'm hoping to get to this quickly. Vaticidalprophet 11:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Starting to get to this now, Psiĥedelisto. Broadly speaking, this is good work. My notes are mostly about the complexities of writing medical articles for broad audiences. For topics someone cares a lot about and knows a lot about, it can be difficult to get into the right headspace of writing for people with very little background knowledge (I struggle with the balance myself).
Early notes:

There are several places where you delve into aside topics in the article's body that might be better presented as footnotes. The mention of the OIEDS1 mutation under Orthopedic stands out to me here -- this is significant to some readers, but not most, and is placed in parentheses. It might be better as a {{NoteFoot}}. (I recommend the more distinctive footnote shape of NoteFoot over something like efn, because you're already using a fairly complex citation style and it stands out much more prominently against the citation numbers, which readers tend to mentally skip.) Similarly, although I understand why the caption is as long as it is and why one might find cutting parts from it to be cutting important detail, some of it (the genetic background and the reason for the low contrast) are mainly relevant to a more technical subset of readers than the archetypal "person whose kid was just diagnosed"/"first year med student" audience; these might be better placed in footnotes.
In the table of types, you switch from placing the hover-for-Arabic-numerals in the table itself for the clinical types, to placing it in a later list for the genetic types. Is there any reason for this switch?
Will return with more, although no significant complaints. Sorry about the wait (both present and future) -- getting to all kinds of things. Vaticidalprophet 12:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

ping Psiĥedelisto again, the last ping might not have gone through Vaticidalprophet 16:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vaticidalprophet, thanks for picking up this review and thanks for the reminder to circle back. It did go through, I've been kinda busy and none of the concerns were major, I looked into the {{NoteFoot}} template the day you sent your message but I'm primarily a WP:VE editor so unfortunately a lot of it has gone over my head; the citation style in my articles is primarily chosen to be the most VE-compatible, although when I came to this one it already had an established style which I worked with rather than against. Can you look at the use of notes in 2channel, which I also authored, and tell me if that's what you mean you want to see? The reason for the Arabic numerals on hover not being there for genetic types is because they aren't explained in the table, but rather in the list. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet:—I think I've managed everything you've asked for so far as of revision 1061168046.  Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
That's looking good! Given the wait, will try to have things wrapped up by...the end of the week, to give an internal deadline, assuming the holidays don't derail that. Also seeing about getting another pair of eyes on the article to give some further comments, given its length. I'm broadly positive about it, though.
My main comment for now, I think, is that there are some very short subsections under "Signs and symptoms". Assuming further expansion isn't possible (as the article is currently 7330 words, it may not be), it may be worth seeing if an alternative way to present the information that doesn't split it up so thoroughly is warranted. For instance, the subheadings might not be necessary given that the focus of each paragraph is relatively clear, and the sections they're broken out to so short. Just something to see what ways of presenting the information work best. Vaticidalprophet 02:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: I combined some of the body systems with marginal (well, infrequent but severe when they do occur) impacts from OI to one section.  Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi again, Psiĥedelisto! Sorry about the wait, I've been spot-checking sources (spot-checks check out okay). I think I'm happy to pass this at GA level. If I recall correctly, you want to take the article to FAC in the future. The GA-FA jump for medical articles is large, so I'm leaving some important notes on that before passing:
WP:MEDDATE is taken very strictly at FAC. There are a number of 10+ year old sources in this article that would raise flags. I strongly recommend reviewing the older sources pre-FAC and seeing how replaceable they are.
Similarly, FAC is less sympathetic than GAN to "underresearched disorders may need to use more primary sourcing than for better-understood conditions to have coherent/high-quality articles". (My own medical FAC failed for this reason.) This is a tricky problem to solve when writing on those subjects; I ended up concluding I don't particularly want to do medical FACs in the future. A few sources fall into both 'primary' and 'old', e.g. reference 37, which is a primary source from 2000.
Some parts of the History section might be deemed too speculative at FAC (e.g. retrospective diagnosis of historical figures), especially cited to general-population rather than medical sources.
Those are the most obvious "okay at GA but not FA" points. Ultimately, though, I think this is okay at GA, and I'm happy to pass it. Vaticidalprophet 11:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Currently says,

"Dogs who are heterozygous for OI should only be bred to non-carriers. Homozygous carriers should never be bred, unless it is to a non-carrier."

These two sentences are both saying the same thing. The source cited for those sentences actually says that a dog homozygous for OI should never be bred, period.  2601:4C0:8100:194:B31F:8804:EF70:F58 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@2601:4C0:8100:194:B31F:8804:EF70:F58—thanks, done. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)