Talk:Risk factors of schizophrenia

message: * I'm not into this just yet, but the edit seems O.K. The Hypoxia section itself might be bloated, why not start a Hypoxia and schizophrenia article, simiral to Scholarpedia's Dopamine and schizophrenia? --CopperKettle (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypoxia and axonal guidance - an answer to the Notpayingthepsychiatrist 

message: If excessive hypoxia beyond a certain tolerance results in activating the hypoxic schizophrenic genes, why not test all fetus' with http://emb-magazine.bme.uconn.edu/EMB_Main/Past_Issues/2006July/Bunce.pdf and treat by giving the mother HBOT?
Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention of schizophrenia 

message: Hi Notpayingthepsychiatrist, 
The new additions still seems to be selecting bits from different sources & putting them together to make the link more than the sources do. e.g. "A predictive cohort of over 12,000 children says: "Altered motor development in schizophrenia is, therefore, fairly robust across many different study designs" - but is it linking that to hypoxia or a range of possible causes? The two quotes from teh book that are run together - are they related to each together in the book? "a 0.004% chance of their being no relation between hypoxia and schizophrenia" - is this referring to the 0.0004% probability from the statistical significance testing? It seems misleading/exaggerated to use that for a general statement like that, and the article also reports some prior null findings. Just some thoughts as per your query. EverSince (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: motor abnormalities

message: Included factors which contribute to delusions, section on HVA refers to schizophrenia specifically.
Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  change to personality section 

message: Neurotransmitters are only modulators of 'trigger level' of specific autosopher or perceptron network.
i would like to point out @ A.Jakubik's findings about how information processing disorders are related to psychoses.
factors like infecteous damage of limbic system (i.e. due to viral, bacterial or parastic infection)
which is usually rich supported by blood (so also circulatory system issues can contribute) 
and 'draws' lot of blood for quick enough information processing 
might be the 'key' to understand schizophrenia, which was afterall described as
'information metabolism' disorder by A.Kepinski. 
also perserveration of perception and perserveration of emotional state can be put into this model nicely, 
as emotional system exists in limbic system structures, which are very prone to perserveration, 
due to their structural design.
so , reorganising the problem : schizophrenia is disorder of information metabolism in individual, with 
core axis symptom - autism - which is disorder of relation of individual with environment.
causes of either of disorders can be easily spot then (i.e. information/social memory overload, 
organic damage of information processing structures or tracts connecting them with other parts of the brain,
or repetative (or very intense) environmental influences.
separate section could include modelling of limbic system in early childchood, altrough this could be 
aswell accounted into organic damage. 
83.12.255.234 (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of holistic approach and structual approach 

message: Just noting that this article seems to need some tidying... repeated bits, disproportionate coverage e.g. hypoxia, informally worded bits. EverSince (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "fn_23" :
**  Dalby, JT, Morgan D & Lee, M (1986). Schizophrenia and mania in identical twin brothers. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 174, 304–308. PMID 3701318
** Huttunen MO, Niskanen P. (1978). Prenatal loss of father and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35(4), 429–31. PMID 727894
DumZiBoT (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: At Molecular Psychiatry: Serious obstetric complications interact with hypoxia-regulated/vascular-expression genes to influence schizophrenia risk The etiology of schizophrenia is thought to include both epistasis and gene-environment interactions. We sought to test whether a set of schizophrenia candidate genes regulated by hypoxia or involved in vascular function in the brain (AKT1, BDNF, CAPON, CHRNA7, COMT, DTNBP1, GAD1, GRM3, NOTCH4, NRG1, PRODH, RGS4, TNF-) interacted with serious obstetric complications to influence risk for schizophrenia. A family-based study of transmission disequilibrium was conducted in 116 trios. Twenty-nine probands had at least one serious obstetric complication (OC) using the McNeil-Sjostrom Scale, and many of the OCs reported were associated with the potential for fetal hypoxia. Analyses were conducted using conditional logistic regression and a likelihood ratio test (LRT) between nested models was performed to assess significance. Of the 13 genes examined, four (AKT1 (three SNPs), BDNF (two SNPs), DTNBP1 (one SNP) and GRM3 (one SNP)) showed significant evidence for gene-by-environment interaction (LRT P-values ranged from 0.011 to 0.037). Although our sample size was modest and the power to detect interactions was limited, we report significant evidence for genes involved in neurovascular function or regulated by hypoxia interacting with the presence of serious obstetric complications to increase risk for schizophrenia. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/sj.mp.4002153 Obstetric-genetic interaction: risk for schizophrenia] 

message: I've accumulated some evidence and hypotheses linking reelin to schizophrenia (see the subsection there). You might find it neccessary to integrate this information into this article somehow. --CopperKettle (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that a summary of the issue should be added, maybe under "other" in neural processes? I'm not sure incidentally if the neural section need reorganizing or anything...don't know what you think. EverSince (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Reelin]] and schizophrenia 

message: That section is chokefull of statements not attributable to the original sources. Examples:  writing that "Jealousy, a common delusion, ranked requiring less dopamine in both experiments." based on  (a study on mice fertility!) and , a case report on one guy that got jealous while taking amphetamine; or non-sensical statements like "This state-created 'personality' is well-known in the culture of a society."
Also, I question the specificity of the section to this article. It should be moved to the Delusion article if not outright deleted. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research/Synthesis in ''Development of specific delusions'' section 

message: Care must be taken to ensure that the reasoning elaborated for heritability explains why it is specifically genetic.  Otherwise you are in the same position as explaining why someone who has an incarcerated relative is at greater risk of being incarcerated than the general population.  Few believe that criminal tendency is part of the genetic code, even though having an aunt, uncle, parent, grandparent, sibling, or cousin behind bars puts one at an approximately 45% risk of becoming incarcerated at some point.
The pat answer, that schizophrenia must be written into the genetic code because family statistics entail the inference, is insufficient to settle the issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquerman (talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heritability. 

message: Like the section on cannabis use, the general notion that schizophrenia is a typology of symptoms rather than a primary disease is not properly weighted as to its probability.  If professionals actively involved in the treatment, diagnosis, and management of schizophrenia were canvassed, most of them would be as nonplussed by the finding that any number of diseases, events, and susceptibilities can cause the same variable cluster of symptoms as they would be by the finding that smoking pot is one of them.  Indeed, it would be very strange if it were not a primary disease.  It's hard to think of any other cluster of specific symptoms, however variable, that is caused by multiple types of events, diseases, toxicologies, weaknesses, etc.
To see it otherwise, and to weight all manner of evidence equally, is somewhat akin to giving Jack London's observation of Samoan culture the same authority as Margaret Mead's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquerman (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symptomology. 

message: I tagged this article as "confusing." I did so even though I appreciate the amount of content it has. My concern is that there are so many hypotheses and anecdotes that it becomes difficult for the general public reader to navigate. Perhaps it would be better to decrease the large number of primary references and their often-anecdotal accompanying text, and limit the page to ideas that have been reviewed by secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we clearly agree more than we disagree. Just to clarify my point, though, I feel that, for the very reason that we, indeed, do not want to speak authoritatively on a single proven cause, this is more than just saying explicitly up front that there are multiple theories. Whether our audience includes those touched by the affliction, or also those from the general public who want to learn more, we owe it to them not to give undue weight to observations that exist as isolated anecdotes in the literature, even the academically peer-reviewed literature. (Where you mention audience members with a variety of experiences, it could be WP:OR for us to imply that a particular reader's experience is explained by a particular case-study in the literature.) The academic peer-reviewed literature includes multiple review articles, and it would be better to shorten the page by largely deleting material that is not cited there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I guess I don't understand your question. The link you provided goes to Schizophrenia. Did you also create a new page? Where you say "transfer," does that mean you deleted parts of the page here? I don't see anything deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: My advice would be to try to incorporate any relevant material that is not specifically about causes into Schizophrenia; no need to fork off a lot of new pages. I agree with you that shortening this page by limiting it to causes only, would be a good idea, but it doesn't really address the issue that I raised. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason this page exists is the size of the schizophrenia article itself. Having an article focussing on this topic, allows for greater depth and more hypothetical theories to be discussed. Also, a treatment of schizophrenia article exists for the same reason. I have not looked at this page in a while and at may be that some copyediting for flow and clarity is needed. This is almost always the case in medical and technical articles that some balance between jargon, accuracy and clarity needs to be struck. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I hear you. I'm planning to work on it soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: That's fine with me. (Also, thank you for leaving a message about it at my talk.) As it happens, my concerns have not been addressed, but I think that's 100% my own fault. I'm afraid that my list of edits that I need to get around to working on has gotten way longer than what I can keep up with, alas. My apologies for that. Eventually, I'll give this page a major overhaul, but until that time, it does our readers no good to leave the tag there, so I'm fine with removing it. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll try to give you a (too) short answer for now, because it would take me a lot of time to go through it all. I'm a Ph.D. so I know the jargon too, but jargon really isn't the issue for me. It's anecdotal case studies that, I think, do not rise to encyclopedic importance, especially given that we are writing for the general public. To be honest, my attention was drawn to the issue by recent edits to the page, and I was trying to gently suggest my concern to the editor who has been making them (so you could in part look at recent edit history). What I'd like to see is to take out the case studies of one or two individuals, and focus instead on theories about the cause that have been given notability by discussion in peer-reviewed review articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I must agree that there are many theories for which the evidence is very limited, but which gain some airing in popular media, and this is the best page to discuss them. I have been meaning to go through this article for some time, but have been busy all over the place....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm replying to you both. Casliber, you make good points both in that we can be helpful in providing an evidence-based context for confusing media reports, and in the issue of being busy -- me too on that. In that regard, when I have some time soon, I'm going to go through the article and try to pull out what I would suggest pruning, but I'll then rapidly self-revert my edit. That way, I won't change anything on the page, but hopefully it will be an efficient way for me to communicate what I would see as specific examples, and for other editors to react before we take any real action. I think that's fair. Notpaying, I've been deliberately trying not to frame my comments as only picking on your recent edits on amphetamine, because I do appreciate your very valuable input here, and I don't want to come across as criticizing. At the same time, it's important that we not let your self-observations as a patient become SYNTH or OR. I definitely agree that we are not writing the page primarily for the health care profession, but for the general public. The professional literature contains a lot of primary publications that are anecdotal case studies; these are useful because they provide a database for subsequent analysis. But when a site like ours presents these cases as encyclopedic, we risk misleading the public by implying that they are significant evidence, when in fact subsequent scientific analysis may (or may not!) demonstrate that an isolated observation was a false lead. Thus the value of subsequent (secondary) scientific review, and thus my suggestion that we cut back on some of the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for being so generous about that. For myself, I really need more time to think about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll look into this some more, but I think the recent edits by another editor have gone a long way towards addressing the concerns that I raised. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: As much as I feel very sympathetic to what you have gone through, I think we need to be careful about what kind of a role we take on. It is worth reading WP:NOTGUIDE, which is very relevant to all of this discussion, in part because of what it says about medical advice, and in part because of what it says about the writing style appropriate to this page generally. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Sorry to keep you waiting! Oh well, I'm overextended and WP:There is no deadline. I appreciate your patience. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: On thinking about it, tryptofish, can you point out the most difficult ones? I had a bit of a look but it is hard to know where to start. Also, I am a doctor so I use jargon all the time and might be a little blinded to some more obivous ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to give you a (too) short answer for now, because it would take me a lot of time to go through it all. I'm a Ph.D. so I know the jargon too, but jargon really isn't the issue for me. It's anecdotal case studies that, I think, do not rise to encyclopedic importance, especially given that we are writing for the general public. To be honest, my attention was drawn to the issue by recent edits to the page, and I was trying to gently suggest my concern to the editor who has been making them (so you could in part look at recent edit history). What I'd like to see is to take out the case studies of one or two individuals, and focus instead on theories about the cause that have been given notability by discussion in peer-reviewed review articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I must agree that there are many theories for which the evidence is very limited, but which gain some airing in popular media, and this is the best page to discuss them. I have been meaning to go through this article for some time, but have been busy all over the place....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm replying to you both. Casliber, you make good points both in that we can be helpful in providing an evidence-based context for confusing media reports, and in the issue of being busy -- me too on that. In that regard, when I have some time soon, I'm going to go through the article and try to pull out what I would suggest pruning, but I'll then rapidly self-revert my edit. That way, I won't change anything on the page, but hopefully it will be an efficient way for me to communicate what I would see as specific examples, and for other editors to react before we take any real action. I think that's fair. Notpaying, I've been deliberately trying not to frame my comments as only picking on your recent edits on amphetamine, because I do appreciate your very valuable input here, and I don't want to come across as criticizing. At the same time, it's important that we not let your self-observations as a patient become SYNTH or OR. I definitely agree that we are not writing the page primarily for the health care profession, but for the general public. The professional literature contains a lot of primary publications that are anecdotal case studies; these are useful because they provide a database for subsequent analysis. But when a site like ours presents these cases as encyclopedic, we risk misleading the public by implying that they are significant evidence, when in fact subsequent scientific analysis may (or may not!) demonstrate that an isolated observation was a false lead. Thus the value of subsequent (secondary) scientific review, and thus my suggestion that we cut back on some of the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for being so generous about that. For myself, I really need more time to think about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll look into this some more, but I think the recent edits by another editor have gone a long way towards addressing the concerns that I raised. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: As much as I feel very sympathetic to what you have gone through, I think we need to be careful about what kind of a role we take on. It is worth reading WP:NOTGUIDE, which is very relevant to all of this discussion, in part because of what it says about medical advice, and in part because of what it says about the writing style appropriate to this page generally. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Sorry to keep you waiting! Oh well, I'm overextended and WP:There is no deadline. I appreciate your patience. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific examples

message: Several academics support the abandonment of the term schizophrenia which is outmoded. i propose that the reason that this article is so confusing is that the term schizophrenia itself means so many different things to so many different professionals. There is a movement amongst both users and professionals to change the name to something more modern than the outmoded term with its derivative connotations of jekyl and hyde split personality - the campaign page is here : http://www.caslcampaign.com/campaign_scientific_arguments.php?article=23 - I think it would be important to recognise this user movement either on the main page or in 'disambiguation' from the wiki subset on schizophrenia ? What are others thoughts on this ?  Darwinerasmus (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is clearly a good one in the sense that there must be a plethora of causes for a condition that is not a single entity. On the other hand, readers will tend to come looking for this familiar word, so we really shouldn't rename this article at this time. I think, for now, it's best to continue to treat this as something that does not have a single cause. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  user / professional movement to change the name of schizophrenia 

message: Just incase there are any problems - I included the sentence on shared placenta in the section on 'Genetics' first thinking the report in Schizophrenia Bulletin was a longitudinal study of placenta number at birth and following concordance of monozygotic twins with schizophrenia.  However the technique of finger print analysis stands unreplicated and is not 100% certain as it is not longitudinal.  But the statistical inference of some genetic influence in monozygotic twins has some remaining doubt because of the mono/dichorionic theory, which was included in the Molecular Psychiatry review, so I think one sentence is appropriate?
Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  environmental interpretation of genetic evidence 

message: Hi, I have spoken to Dr Seeman about this graph and he still supports it, so the research is still relevant; however, the caption includes a lot of information which gives a proper perpective on the dopamine hypothesis, and the possible monomer explanation, which is why it is so long.  As this is a team effort, feel free to adjust the length.
Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption to sz graph 

message: I think the variety of causes demonstrated in this article is excelent testimony to the state of schizophrenia research.   Especially the last contributor who 
emphasised a behavioural aspect to dopamine conditioning.
Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  variety of causes 

message: I have tried to find a journal or book which substantiates the claim that innab made that some schizophrenics are abusing their reward circuitry.  I thought I remembered from about a decade ago Kaplan and Saddock's Synopsis of Psychiatry saying the habit circuit was possibly causal in schizophrenia but can't find the quote on line.
Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dangerous original research tag 

message: (Crosspost from Talk:Schizophrenia) Today's papers have a study from Nature Genetics that needs to be in the article. It's called Exome sequencing supports a de novo mutational paradigm for schizophrenia by Bin Xu, Maria Karayiorgou and several others. It costs $18. Can anybody who is actively working on this article afford to buy it? There are high level summaries in WebMD, Ars Technica and elsewhere. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Striking comment here because the question has been answered at Talk:Schizophrenia. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of schizophrenia 

message: I would like to suggest that this article be updated to describe schizophrenia as a neurodevelopmental disease. I am reading the book Origins of Schizophrenia, published 2012 by Columbia University Press, and chapter 1 (page 25) says: 
 Thank you. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: "psychologist Julian Jaynes in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind; he proposed that until the beginning of historic times, schizophrenia or a similar condition was the normal state of human consciousness.[139"
Well, it couldn't have been schizophrenia. I don't care how expert Mr. Jayne is it's obvious he never knew someone with schizophrenia very well. Otherwise he'd have realized long ago that someone with this illness cannot carry on a coherent conversation with someone else for any length of time. They may hallucinate but so what? Since someone who's schizophrenic can't communicate their ideas w/ anyone else easily at all, I'd like to know how a schizophrenic person could ever become a shaman in any society. In fact, the idea is so ludicrous it gives one pause. There should be an accompanying statement that despite the guy's lofty wishes, people with schizophrenia frequently cannot organize their thoughts, have great difficulty communicating their thoughts, and at times can appear catatonic for long stretches. Which might sort of ruin their persuasive abilities. It makes this guy's statement seem ill informed at best. Case and point, Joan of Arc may have been pyschotic and experienced hallucinations but she was definitely NOT schizophrenic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.105.146 (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia the norm? 

message: Can make mice be schizophrenia?Manzzzz(talk) 06:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: good question difficult to answer I guess. I think that schizophrenia is not a mice diseases but, maybe some mice have symptoms close to schizophrenia but it's certainly not a wide disease like what we can see in humans... but what is interesting is that some physicians or biologist have modified the genome of mice, or have added drugs during the pregnancy or during the whole life of the mice to create schizophrenic's mice, they are not exactly schizophrenic but have some characteristics of schizophrenic people.--Nicobzz (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder. 

message: Hi! I have found a new article about links between schizophrenia and autophagy, I added this link in french version of the shizophrenia article.
If you find it interesting, you can also add it: 
It says there is a significant lack of Beclin 1 protein, which promote autophagy in schizophreniac's hippocampus. And also an excess of other protein or RNA in blood's lymphocyte.
--Nicobzz (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new article about schizophrenia and autophagy 

message: In September 2011, a meta-analyse of genome-wide association studies discovered that 129 over 136 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) significantly associated with schizophrenia were located in Major histocompatibility complex region of the genome.Genome-wide association study identifies five new schizophrenia loci.
I had just added this part in this article, as I'm not a specialist in this domain I'm not sure it tells exactly what I told in this article, but it seems that I didn't tell something wrong, don't hesitate to download the publication and check it and discuss here.--Nicobzz (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genome wide association study and 129 SNP over 136 are located in mhc region

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Causes of schizophrenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430235133/http://www.schizophreniaforum.org:80/new/detail.asp?id=1326 to http://www.schizophreniaforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=1326
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922115831/http://www.nhsconfed.org:80/Publications/Documents/MHN_factsheet_August_2009_FINAL_2.pdf to http://www.nhsconfed.org/Publications/Documents/MHN_factsheet_August_2009_FINAL_2.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ash.org.uk/html/policy/menlitrev.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Causes of schizophrenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.schizophreniaforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=1326
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107185719/http://www.polygenicpathways.co.uk/schizrisk.html to http://www.polygenicpathways.co.uk/schizrisk.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524165747/http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/TR_18/%24file/TR.121.PDF to http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/TR_18/%24file/TR.121.PDF
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhsconfed.org/Publications/Documents/MHN_factsheet_August_2009_FINAL_2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708032809/http://www.childtrauma.org/CTAMATERIALS/Psychiatry_02.pdf to http://www.childtrauma.org/CTAMATERIALS/Psychiatry_02.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405104051/http://www.schizophreniacommission.org.uk/the-report/ to http://www.schizophreniacommission.org.uk/the-report/
*Added  tag to http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=11695950
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This sentence at the top is utterly bizarre:
"The language of schizophrenia research under the medical model is scientific."
What is this even trying to say? Just the language of schizophrenia research? "Scientific", as opposed to what? "The medical model" as opposed to... what alternative models? (A medieval model involving demon possession? Conjectures about alien mind control?)  —Undomelin (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird introduction statement 

message: Would a better heading be Risk factors?--Iztwoz (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be at least as good a title. You would want to propose a change of the article title on this talk page. There is a rather formal format to use for this, that involves a sort of voting, but I cannot find the page about it. I suggest you ask on the WP:Teahouse.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Quisqualis - thought to post here for feedback since it is such a long-standing page.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes?

message: Hi, Im student from Uskudar University. I edit this article (Risk factors of schizophrenia) as an assignment for my course (Recent Developments in Biotechnology). I already completed Wikipedia training modules to be proficient in Wikipedia editing. I would appreciate any support. 
Best wishes, 
Leen Sarakbi Leen sarakbi (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm new editor