Talk:Modafinil

message: , I saw you removed the Nootropic and a few other categories in Special:Diff/1182852997. I agree with all but perhaps the Nootropic category removal. The other categories are more well-defined and evidence-based, but Nootropics, by its very nature, seems more informal and includes things taken for their purported nootropic effect. Even Nootropic says they are  (emphasis mine). People certainly take modafinil with the intention of improving cognitive function, and so I think it should remain in that category. I'm not particularly invested in it either way, just thought I'd put in my 2 cents. Kimen8 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your prompt reply. Would you mind I return the nootropics category. We will further watch for the other editors' opinion and behave accordingly, OK? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries either way. Kimen8 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I returned it with appropriate comment. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Nootropics]] 

message: In Modafinil#Sleep_disorders
I don't think this is a reliable source for this (besides that it's WP:UNDUE to have a whole paragraph for a single study). --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fix the first two citations in . --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Can you please do that change, as you are the same editor as me? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Can you please review the revised "Uses" section, I have addressed the issues that you have noticed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I think the "Sleep disorders" section should be rewritten. It has WP:UNDUE amount of irrelavant information about study protocols (which isn't really helpful for a reader). It should be trimmed. --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me fix that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

text: @Iztwoz why do you think it is a contradiction? Eugeroics are classified as central nervous system stimulants because they need to stimulate CNS to promote wakefulness. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

text: @Iztwoz I tried to resolve the supposed contradiction that you spotted by modifying the lead, please review. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage § Sleep disorder section 

message: Please keep the reference names that have a PubMed ID (PMID) as "pmidXXXX", for example <ref name="pmid31422705"> for , as I rely on this small unique ID to search for the articles, avoid duplication, etc. however, feel free to rename other references that do not have PubMed ID. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Names 

message: @WikiLinuz, thank you for your improvement of the article! Please try to keep the explanation of jargon and not remove it, I refer to jargon like "operational tempo". And if you encounter jargon which is not explained, try to explain it for the general audience. That was not me who pointed to this issue. If you see the page revision at about June 2023, you will see tags like, I tried to address all these issues. I agree that "operational tempo" is a jargon worth explaining, moreover, I didn't know it's meaning myself, and when I started to search, I figured out that "operational tempo", which means the rate at which military operations or activities are conducted, whereas increase of the "operational tempo" refers to the enhancement the unit's overall performance and efficiency. There were dozens of such jargon like "operational tempo" or "postmarketing surveliance" which I hope I addressed all of them, but if you find some other which were not tagged as , please let me know or try to address by yourself! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find that term be confusing; it's pretty intuitive. "Tempo" comes from music (which generally means "speed"—in musical context for example). But if you think it warrants an explanation, I don't have an objection. If the jargon has its own wiki page, we generally just link to it (but in this case it doesn't it seems so I guess it's okay to have a short explanation). --WikiLinuz (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not skilled in music either, I just took the page as it was and found out that this was marked as jargon using a template, and I also didn't know its meaning. English is not my native language and this is first time when I saw this term. Probably English is your language, that's why you didn't find it confusing. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Please see that diff:  Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: For example, Postmarketing_surveillance#United_States has its own wikipage so we can just link it there since I think it's not super important to explain it inline (because it's not related to the subject of the article itself). It's good practice to make encyclopedic entries as concise as possible at the same time have relevant info about the subject itself (without giving WP:UNDUE importance to minor details). --WikiLinuz (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not WP:UNDUE when you can explain a term in a couple of words or use simpler words, we should not rely on the links always but write in a simpler language instead or use a couple of words explanation when possible. Even Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Writing for the wrong audience advises to avoid jargon when there are suitable plain English words. If you exclude the explanation, that guy will come again and put [jargon] again and will be right. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Let me ask that person to give reasoning. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Wikilinks are needed when a reader wants go get details or more information, not when the reader does not know at all; we should write in such a way that the reader would not need to click links. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: The initial editor mentioned that the wikilink should be sufficient (see #Postmarketing surveillance), let it be so. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of Jargon 

message: you put  on the modafinil page, in particular, you tagged postmarketing surveillance as a jargon. Do you think it can be addressed by a wikilink to the postmarketing surveillance article as suggested by WikiLinuz at , or should it be addressed some other way, such as giving a 3-4 words explanation on what is it, or rewriting it in a simple language, or something else? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a wikilink would be sufficient. ― Moorlock (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Should you have time, we would appreciate if you review the article again, because we resolved all the tags that you inserted. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmarketing surveillance 

message: According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers, the editors should refrain from altering the style of elements such as date format, units, and so on, within an article unless there is a significant reason that is not merely a preference for a different style. Engaging in revert-wars over optional styles is not acceptable. If a consensus cannot be reached through discussion regarding the style to be used in an article, the style established by the first major contributor should be respected. My understanding is that this rule also applies to reference formats. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference format 

message: @WikiLinuz, @Iztwoz
I moved all mentioning of studies from "Usage" section to "Research" section. Can you please review the research section and mark all claims that are not supported by secondary studies by a header section template, so I could find secondary studies? My understanding that Wikipedia should not discuss all primary research studies unless they are mentioned in the secondary research, anyway, it is better to get research directions from secondary research:
WP:MEDMOS:  Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @[[User:WikiLinuz], @User:Iztwoz, do you have any idea on how can we improve the article any further, or may we submit it to GA? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage section 

message: @Bon courage Can you please specify where exactly it relies on primary sources, such as by using  as you put the header without being specific. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bon courage I noticed you put one  but was also editing the article and occasionally overwritten it, sorry. I will address this problem that you identified, thank you! Should you find some other problems, please let me know! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is crammed with primary sources for WP:BMI, even highly technical WP:MEDANIMAL stuff about rodents. The tag should not be removed until this problem is solved. Bon courage (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me put back this tag. I will try to remove all those inappropriate sources. However, I'd appreciate if you mark specific places with appropriate inline templates. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lot of work I've not got time for. The article really needs a thorough source audit and biomedical material relying on primary sources needs to be removed (or get MEDRS sourcing). Just from a glance there are very many such problematic sources. The sourcing is also broken (see errors in reflist). This is an essential step before the article can be considered for GA. Bon courage (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I will review and let you know. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

text: @Bon courage, I have addressed all the issues with primary sources, and the only sections where primary sources left are Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics and Chemistry. Are primary sources acceptable there, or only that information should be left about invitro and animal studies that is described in secondary sources? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources can be used to touch in details, but so far as I can see large portions of the pharmocology material in this article rest entirely on primary sources (some quite old), and their content is asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source, not a secondary one. Bon courage (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will rework the pharmocology section. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

text: @Bon courage, I put secondary sources for the pharmacology material, and removed the information that was not backed by secondary sources. Could you please review and let me know whether the "reliable medical references" header can be removed? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It no longer looks like a serious problem that merits the tag. Bon courage (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I will remove the tag then. Should you notice something bad in the future, please feel free to put the tag back. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: I have clarified the "deviate from prescribed dosages", it was a slightly different meaning in the referenced article, which I hope I explained correctly. Please let me know whether it is now OK. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deviate from prescribed dosages 

message: Your observation about the brand names was correct. Would you mind if I remove them altogether to keep consistency with the other places in the article, where nowhwere the brands are mentioned? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to be a bit more specific about what my observation regarding brand names was. If you mean my most recent edit where I moved proprietary names into parentheses, then I think it is safe to remove the proprietary name. Those terms are wikilinked and the proprietary name is generally mentioned there in the lede if it's noteworthy anyway. Kimen8 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I slightly changed the wording in your edit to be a bit less clunky. It is amphetamine (racemic), or dextroamphetamine, or salts thereof. Kimen8 (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand names 

message: I propose to delete subsection Modafinil#Multiple sclerosis-related fatigue (research) (the one from Research section), because it contradicts with the subsection Modafinil#Multiple sclerosis-related fatigue from the Usage section). The subsection from "Research" lists old primary stidies and old review whereus the subsesection from the "Usage" section lists no primary studies and later reviews. The earlier review mentioned in subsection from "Research" found that the evidence is weak and inconclusinve, but later reviews from "Usage" section found sufficient evidence. Therefore, to remove this contradition, I propose to remove the subsection from reseach, as it adds no value and also lists primary research which is not a solid evidence per se, and Wikipedia is not mean to be a collection of reiteration of primary studies. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete of the [[Modafinil#Multiple sclerosis-related fatigue (research)]] section 

message: can you please review the subsection Modafinil#Cognitive enhancement in the Research section, as I rearranged studies mentioned by year and made a conclusion. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Modafinil#Cognitive enhancement]] 

message: Hello, @Tea with toast! You have indicated that the sentence "Modafinil's unique mechanism of action sets it apart from other stimulants, making it a valuable medication for managing sleep disorders" has a promotional-sounding language, and suggested to removed it. This sentence was in the paragraph after the sentence that other stimulants may produce euthoria whereas modanil may not. When I wrote that sentence, I wanted to emphasize that distinct mechanisms of action of modafinil make it an option to consider when the euphoric effects of potential abuse or dependence are wanted to be avoided. However, that sentence turned out to sound like a promotional statement. I also noticed that, but didn't have the idea at that time how to rewrite it, and, it didn't seem to me at that time to sound such promotional as it was now when I re-read it after some time passed. 
Did I understand correctly that you suggested to remove the promotional tone, not the sentence itself that sounded like a promotion? Was my understanding correct that you suggested to rewrite the sentence, if possible, in a more neutral language? 
If my understanding was correct, then let me know. I rewritten this sentence. Now it is (quote): "Modafinil has a different mechanism of action from other stimulants, therefore, modafinil is an option for treating sleep disorders when the other stimulants are not desired due to their potential for abuse or addiction." There are other variants to consider, such as "Modafinil works differently from other stimulants, thus it can be used to treat sleep disorders when the other stimulants are not preferred because of their possible addictive effects" or "Modafinil's mechanisms of action are different from other stimulants, which makes it a viable option for treating sleep disorders when the other stimulants are not suitable due to their potential for addiction or abuse".
Here are the other version of this sentence that I used now, with minor tweaks. @Tea with toast, please let me know whether you like the current version, or some variant from below. The feedback from all Wikipedia editors is welcome!
* Modafinil has a different mechanism of action from other stimulants, and this makes it an alternative for treating sleep disorders when the other stimulants are not desired due to their potential for abuse or addiction.
* Modafinil has a different mechanism of action from other stimulants, and this makes it an option for treating sleep disorders when the other stimulants are not desired due to their potential for abuse or addiction that they may cause.
Please note that this sentence is used in the lead, so I wanted to have the language as plain and simple as possible, as required by the Wikipedia rules on the lead section. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinct mechanisms of action of modafinil make it an option for sleep disorders when the other stimulants are not desired due to their euphoric effects 

message: you noticed that  in a edit by Tea with toast that added a "citation needed" template were you revered that edit. I also noticed that in most templates added by Tea with toast, the citation is given at the end of paragraph. According to Wikipedia rules, citations to support for all the claims made in a paragraph can be done at the end of this paragraph. 
We already had a similar discussion #Citation after each sentence in Society and culture / economy section where Whywhenwhohow also proposed to include more citations by adding the "citation needed" templates in a paragraph where there were already sources at the end of the paragraph. Still, Whywhenwhohow quoted the rules, in particular, that "Medical articles should be relatively dense with inline citations" according to WP:MEDMOS. 
In my opinion, duplicated citations may be justified when there are several citations at the end of the paragraph, and there is a claim of particular importance supported by less than all those citations so that it may be beneficial to only indicate those citations (citation) that support a particular claim. Also, there may be claims of particular importance when additional citations may be needed from sources of higher quality in the context of that particular claim, so that additional citations may be needed to support this claim, citations that are not given at the end of the paragraph.
So, in my opinion, suggesting additional citations by adding the "citation needed" template is a way to improve the article. In my opinion, additions of such requests should not be reverted even in cases when subsequent sentences have this statement. In the particular case that we had, the source at "StatPearls" was probably not good enough, so that additional sources might have been needed. Such requests should be kept. If such requests are inappropriate, we may first discuss them on a Talk page and then remove them. I prefer to first discuss issues on the Talk page rather than simply removing them unless there is an urgency to revert, such as vandalism or the addition of unsourced information to a biography of a living person.
As I already mentioned, Whywhenwhohow pointed out that Wikipedia’s medical citation guidelines recommend that "Medical articles should be relatively dense with inline citations, with at least one citation for every paragraph, except for the lead section and paragraphs that summarize other cited material". Still, this "at least" statement should not be extensively applied. This is because medical information is subject to frequent change and scrutiny, and requires high-quality sources to ensure accuracy and reliability. Therefore, the guidelines also suggest that "Citations should be placed at the end of the sentence or clause that they support, and should not be placed at the end of a paragraph unless they support the entire paragraph". In our case, my understanding is that the application of Tea with toast of these rules was correct. This requirement to put citations to the end of a sentence or clause that they support is to avoid confusion and ambiguity about which source supports which claim and to make it easier for readers and editors to verify the information. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra citations 

message: This trimming was justified because the existing content and sources are from basic lab research, leading to jargon-filled conjecture and synthesis of possible modafinil effects. The remaining content is mostly consistent with the 2023 Greenblatt summary which is really all we need to say and source, as it is concise and relatively easy to follow for the general, non-science encyclopedia user.
The pharmacodynamics section should follow the MEDMOS guide about "writing for the wrong audience": it is not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource. Zefr (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Zefr, I think it is really important to distinquish between the level of evidence required to determine if a drug works (review articles of human clinical trials) vs. how a drug works.  The later is normally relies on lab/animal studies, not human studies. Invasive human clinical trials to determine mechanism are not ethical.  I agree with you that it is not permissible to imply efficacy in humans based on laboratory studies.  But that is not was done here.  Efficacy has been supported with MEDRS compliant sources.  The mechanism of how it works has not been completely worked out.  Discussing leading theories of how it works is fair game. We should always strive to make articles understandable to a wide auidence. But the pharmacodynamics section is inherently technical, so writing it in a technical manner is somewhat unavoidable.  Boghog (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pharmacodynamics section 

message: I disagree with the opinion behind this revert. The lede "is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read." 
For a drug widely misunderstood and misused particularly by young adults, it would be useful to have concise, lay-friendly reviews in the lede, such as MedlinePlus, Drugs.com, or the Greenblatt summary. Zefr (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for discussing that on the talk page. I agree with that edit on substance, but can you please not add references (citations) to the lead section to keep it clean and easy to read? and make sure instead that the claims that made in the lead are duplicated in the body with correct. I will add a substituted template "Leadcite comment" for future information for the editors. , see WP:MOSLEAD and MOS:LEADCITE. Can you please do the edit, but without adding citations to the lead, and make sure the information is present in the body and is cited in the body? Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pretty much every sentence in a medical article, including the lead, should have a citation. Readers should not have to search for relevant text or relevant citations within the document. Please see discussions about citations at WT:MED, WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDCITE. -- Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Whywhenwhohow I read discussions about citations that you mentioned but there wasn't mentioned anything specific about the lead. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Medical articles should be dense with citations and that includes the lead. WP:MEDCITE has a section about citations in the lead. MOS:LEADCITE states . Please get consenus at WT:MED before removing citations from the lead of medical articles. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Whywhenwhohow this essay you refer doesn't aim to mandate a rule, it describes a use case; the information in the lead section of modafinil is not complex or controversial, it is mostly the same as can be found in a leaflet (monograph). Anyway, you try to misinterpret the rule and mandate your understanding of the rules. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no logical reason not to have general references in the lede to aid users who may be doing a quick check on what modafinil is and what reputable consumer sources say about it. Also, the current lede does not adequately highlight the potential adverse effects and interactions with prescription drugs, warnings for existing clinical conditions, or overdosing. Proceeding with an edit. Zefr (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please also add the reference to the last paragraph at the lede, that ends with "cognitive functions? If you wish the lead had reference, than the reference use in the lead has to be consistent, you should not expect other people continue a change that you begun over an otherwise valid page (when the rules give options). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I've added the missing references to the lead Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is classified as an eugeroic (a wakefulness-promoting drug) rather than a classical psychostimulant due to its lack of euphoric effects." This statement was removed from the lede because modafinil does have euphoric properties, according to the DailyMed (under Drug Abuse) and the monograph under Abuse and Misuse Potential. Zefr (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Thank you for pointing that out. I also re-read the review studies and found out that they don't completely rule out euphoric effects, they mention that the euphoric effect in modafinil exists, but it is lower than in classical stimulants such as cocaine or amphetamine. I modified the section "Addiction and dependence" and "Sleep disorders", mentioning that modafinil has euphoric effects, albeit to a lower degree than classical stimulants. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources in the lede 

message: I tried to make the text to understand for the general audience as much as possible, and tried to use simple terms whenever possible. When I could not find a simple term, I wrote short explanations. For example, there were an explanation "CPAP is a device that is used during sleep to deliver pressurized air into the nose and mouth to keep airways open and prevent breathing interruptions."
It is easier to read the text when there are the explanations, rather than clicking hyperlinks.
The user Whywhenwhohow made some good edits, I like those edits, still, one of the edits deleted this explanation.
Whywhenwhohow: can you please restore that explanation, or, if you think that it is too long, add a shorter explanation on what is CPAP? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small clarifications for general audience who are not health care practitioners 

message: Apparently modafinil has been used to treat excessive daytime sleepiness in Parkinson's. Could somebody competent add a section about this please?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4252229/ 92.239.195.55 (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is too little information, there was one small controlled trial of 19 adult patients. We need more, bigger controlled trials to appear and wait for a review or a meta-analysis on these trials, see WP:MEDRS for more details on the procedure. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parkinson's disease 

message: I've noticed that the script User:Headbomb/unreliable.js marks a few sources in the Modafinil article as borderline, such as . User:JoelleJay can you please help us sorting out these yellow sources in Modafinil, such as (a) replacing them with better sources, (b) adding a comment that a source is appropriate in this particular case via, for example,   or some other way, or (c) removing a statement when there are no good sources left. I am not very good in distinguishing really bad sources that should be removed from marginally bad that can be kept. Can you please help in that and/or guide me what should I do on each of those sources, or maybe there are other options to address yellow sources? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I can look into replacement sources. JoelleJay (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, will be looking for your feedback. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to get to it this week, unless there is a time constraint here? JoelleJay (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no time constraint, please do that when you have time if at all. Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borderline sources