lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Electroneuronography

message: This article would benefit from inline references, so the reader could tell which refs support which statements.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with WhatamIdoing. I would specifically like to seen a citation for the 1979 article by Esslen and Fisch; a quick Google search failed to elucidate that reference. The year 2000 book The Facial Nerve by Mark May reference a 1972 article by Esslen and Fisch in Arch Otolanryngol which is cited as popularizing (but not describing) electrical study of the facial nerve in certain conditions. Nerve conduction studies/electroneuronography have been performed since the mid-1800s, with refinements in techniques and instrumentation making electroneuronography/nerve conduction study clinically practical in the late 1940s, so clearly the assertion that these techniques were not available before 1979 is incorrect. El piel (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

text: The assertion that the facial nerve is the most commonly studied nerve by electroneuronography is also false (made in the second paragraph of the lead). As a practitioner of nerve conduction studies and EMG, I can state from experience (though I'd have to go hunting for references) that limb nerves, especially the median, are much more commonly evaluated using this technique. El piel (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: There is a separate wikipedia article entitled nerve conduction study, which is the same procedure as nerve conduction study, just under a different name. As is evident by the content of this page, electroneuronography is term most commonly used for the nerve conduction study of the facial nerve, and in my experience is more commonly used by ENT specialists than by neurologists or PM&R specialists. I would propose that ENoG content be merged into the nerve conduction study article, as I believe nerve conduction study to be the more common term used. Please provide input. Thanks. El piel (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose Merge
Talk:Functional near-infrared spectroscopy

message: Article needs to be expanded by adding applications, current research, more fundamental equations for frequency, time-resolved and SRS techniques. Section on limitations of the technique should be added discussing non-heme chromophores, skull and other physiological differences, variability in photon path lengths, superficial hemodynamic contributions, and variations in aterial/venous contributions.Azurex120 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What is the mm resolution of fNIR?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:7001:400:3526:88A0:5723:F775 (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  mm resolution of fNIR is what 

message: The sources 5, 6, 7, 8 are actually this wikipedia page istelf: the quintessence of a circular citation! The same was for source 3 on which, however, the author of the supposed work referenced was named in the text. The work referred to in this circular citation, is a foundational paper in the field, so I managed to add the missing source. However, additionally, the factual content of this work was misquoted.
Unfortunately, this throws doubts on the competences and, given the circular references, on the good faith, of who wrote at least part of the content, and therefore warrants some caution on the general content of the page.HarpsiMario (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Wikipedia page cites itself 

message: I will be working on this page for an advanced writing course. I plan on adding a section on functional connectivity under the applications sub-header.  
DRSingh03115 (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned Edits (added section) 

message: The phrasing "applications for the devices are astounding" feels like hype from a manufacturer or something -- could easily be removed to make the article more neutral, and then it's up to the editor to figure out whether the claimed possible applications are supported out in the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C900:44D0:D839:FAB4:86F6:3334 (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  hyperbolic language
Talk:Frontal eye fields

message: Whilst frontal eye fields are involved in attention and oculomotor programming, it might be worth mentioning that the literature has showed differences at the neuronal level that differentiate the two types of activation.
Jeffrey Schall has done a lot of work on this using primates.
147.143.95.28 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  premotor theory/ differences in activation 

message: primer link: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Frontal_eye_field
147.143.95.28 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: useful starter for anyone wishing to improve the article 

message: Also, whilst the FEF are involved in visual attention, I'm sure I read a paper recently that FEF are involved somehow in auditory attention. I think that's particularly interesting because of the structure name, so perhaps somebody would like to dig that paper out too.
Cheers,
147.143.95.28 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  auditory attention 
Talk:ATCC (company)

message: ==Untitled==
Why was the section "Supply to Iraqi weapons program" removed on 29 June 2007? (This "censorship" was performed by a non-registered user). Kuke 10:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The solution seems simple enough: rather than delete factual information, simply include additional information needed to make clear that the ATCC was not criminally trafficking biological weapons. It's now very relevant to see the that U.S. foreign-policy establishment has a history of judging poorly what belligerent dictatorships will do with disease research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:1002:3800:D010:85F:4708:BDA1 (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure what you're looking for, but long before anyone's finished filing their Tax Year 2020 tax returns, Pro-Publica (and many other sources) has IRS 990 forms for ATCC for Tax Year 2018, so that's only one year out of date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:1002:3800:D010:85F:4708:BDA1 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: Why was the section "Supply to Iraqi weapons program" removed on 29 June 2007? (This "censorship" was performed by a non-registered user). Kuke 10:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The solution seems simple enough: rather than delete factual information, simply include additional information needed to make clear that the ATCC was not criminally trafficking biological weapons. It's now very relevant to see the that U.S. foreign-policy establishment has a history of judging poorly what belligerent dictatorships will do with disease research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:1002:3800:D010:85F:4708:BDA1 (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It always seems challenging to find good secondary sources for companies and such, especially a niche company like ATCC. But anyway, here's what I've got:
*A chapter of a book from the National Academies Press titled "Resource Sharing in Biomedical Research". There's a chapter all about ATCC and how it works and what it's inventory and processing look like. Tragically it's from 1996. So the numbers are all probably pretty stale, but maybe there's other good info in there?
*Pro-Publica has some of ATCC's financials here. They also look a few years out of date, but maybe there's a way to get fresher numbers?
:: Not sure what you're looking for, but long before anyone's finished filing their Tax Year 2020 tax returns, Pro-Publica (and many other sources) has IRS 990 forms for ATCC for Tax Year 2018, so that's only one year out of date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:1002:3800:D010:85F:4708:BDA1 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:Histone deacetylase inhibitor

message: N-sulphonylpyrrole derivatives may be a separate type of HDI  Rod57 (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sulphonylpyrroles ? 

message: What do 2nd generation HDIs bind to, or how are they defined ? Rod57 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd generation HDIs 

message: Rod57 (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sulforaphane 

message: See DNA_methyltransferase#Clinical_significance. Rod57 (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other epigenetic inhibitors 

message: Under Cancer treatments it says "Estrogen is well-established as a mitogenic factor implicated in the tumorigenesis and progression of breast cancer via its binding to the estrogen receptor alpha (ERα). Recent data indicate that chromatin inactivation mediated by HDAC and DNA methylation is a critical component of ERα silencing in human breast cancer cells.[30]" but this seems unbalanced here since no HDI has got to phase 3 for breast cancer yet. Perhaps it should be moved to breast cancer research ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How relevant to breast cancer 

message: Certain Oncology Agents Enhance Immunotherapy Response in Lung Cancer Mouse Models : ends "These results pave the way for a new clinical application of HDAC inibitors, since so far their use as single agents in solid tumors has not produced positive results. “These results suggest that combination of HDAC inhibitors with PD-1 blockade represents a promising strategy for lung cancer treatment,” senior author Amer Beg said in a press release. A clinical trial is currently recruiting participants to test combination therapy of an HDAC and PD-1 inhibitor in stage 4 non-small cell lung cancer patients." - Can we say why HDI are not effective for solid tumours ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible synergy with PD-1 blockade for cancer 

message: This section has grown (now 5 approved agents) and seems far more active than use in psychiatry. Propose to split out so future detail doesn't unbalance the main article. Any comments ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split out of Cancer Treatment section
Talk:History of neurology and neurosurgery

message: I don't see any proposal for merger, so there is no case to answer. There will naturally be an overlap between history of neurology and history of neuroscience, but since they are not the same thing, it is reasonable to have different articles. I will remove the merger banners. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then one might fear, perhaps, that would yield to big an article : indeed there is still much to be said only on the topic of how knowledge about neurological disorders developped through ages. Archibald Tuttle (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Given the lack of consensus, I have removed the merge tags. --LT910001 (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger
Talk:Robert Burås

message: I have removed the stub status (without asking anyone) after expanding the article with info stolen/borrowed/nicked/gleaned from the German wikipedia article. Feel free to re-stub it if you feel the article still is stubb-ish.
TorW (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub no more 
Template talk:Armies of the Soviet Army

message: Why the names of the Air Defence Armies are given mainly in German? --Brand спойт 11:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Defence Armies

message: Just noticed this :o) Konnaya, if taken literally would be Stallion Armies, however the Konnaya Armiya was composed of Kavaleriyskiye chasti, or Cavalry units, so maybe in this case the Armies can be Cavalry even if not strictly true to translation. After all we would not want to be sexist ;o)--mrg3105mrg3105 08:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I wonder at you Mrg. The rule is, Be Bold - just fix it, especially in the case of low profile things like this. I'm just about to change it to Cavalry Armies as per most English translations. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like to tinker with other people's work without permission, and you have done a LOT of work on this template, for which I'm grateful. Believe it or not I would much rather discuss things because in discussion I usually learn something...though sometimes it is something I would rather have avoided on occasions :o) I had training in arguing, so if the counter-posing view is at all logic and evidence based, I will either prevail or admit I am wrong (if proven)--mrg3105mrg3105 09:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horse armies?
Talk:Intracranial dolichoectasias

message: Lancet Neurology doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00089-7 JFW | T@lk 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 
Talk:Lennox–Gastaut syndrome

message: .  I just don't have time to upload it right now.  If you'd like to upload it but don't know how, I'm glad to help, just drop me a note on my talk page. delldot ∇. 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free image available 

message: i have a 7 year old son who was diagnosed with the lennox gastaut syndrom when he was 3, just looking for someone to talk toMarie 1920 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Marie there are epilepsy support groups that may help, see http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/support_groups Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  need someone to relate to 

message: "A study of 225 children and adults authored by Anup Patel of Nationwide Children's Hospital and Ohio State University College of Medicine showed cannabidiol resulted in reduction of drop seizures by at least half in two-fifths of patients."
We really need a review per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. At least you didn't just revert this time. I looked for something but didn't see it. Yesterday I was at home and stay away from unfamiliar sites. My original source didn't provide a link, which is unusual.— Vchimpanzee •  talk • contributions •  17:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Combined it in the research section Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannabidiol
Talk:Limb–girdle muscular dystrophy

message: See https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/06/the-gene-that-explains-statins-most-puzzling-side-effect/674542/ about mevalonolactone as a successful treatment Quantum.presence (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: see MEDRS ,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New research development about mevalonolactone should be mentioned on this page
Talk:Motor unit number estimation

message: If you divide the CMAP size by Steps to get a mean, then divide the CMAP size by the mean, you will get Steps.
"The CMAP is then divided by the number of steps required to reach the intensity of the CMAP to get a mean SMUAP size. The number of steps does not correlate to the total number of motor units in the muscle. Instead, the CMAP size is then divided by the mean SMUAP size to get an estimation of the number of motor units in the muscle."
173.25.54.191 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction
Talk:Multiple subpial transection

message: There are several reasons this article is in severe need of attention by a qualified individual.
First of all: The style of this article is bewildering. Second: It is not understandable without prior medical knowledge and stays very vague even with that. Thirdly: The reference basis is poor as it only deals with a single study on application in a single condition. (The article itself suggests other uses, but does not elaborate on them.)--91.6.13.221 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup&Co

message: It looks like this article has been taken wholly from , , and .  I wasn't able to determine a definite creation date for that other page, but it claims to have last been edited in 2004, well before the 2006 creation date of this article.  Archive.org only has that URL mirrored back to 2007, though, so I can't be sure.  In any case, judging from the poor wiki style, it's likely that that website is the original and this article is the copy.  --DachannienTalkContrib 00:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy/paste or copyvio
Talk:Neural clique

message: This article is pretty poor overall, but the "see also" section is especially bad. "Brain" would be a better choice than "consciousness", and the next two links are to junk science. I am changing this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithoppsosite (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Lithoppsosite, I saw the article only after your changes and it had still to be reworked. I reworked it to add more sources and place them inline, I now removed the banner, the article should be okay-ish in this state (this is still in research, there is much to be discovered, but there is enough evidence to make it a noteworthy concept IMHO). --Lrq3000 (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article, Absurd Links 

message: Could someone who understands this topic fix this not-sentence: "However, the mesoscopic level microscopic level with the NMDA coding of coordinated activity in synapses."? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the 'History' section, just past half-way down. Looks like inadvertent combination of the preceding and following sentences. Perhaps just remove that not-sentence, as that wouldn't seem to change the information presented? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Signimu (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete sentence
Talk:Neural tissue engineering

message: To whom this may concern,
I'm currently in a course where we pick a topic and write a wikipedia page on the topic. I chose Neural tissue engineering, and I have been compiling research to help me write about the topic. I just wanted to let you know that I will be updating this page.
Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilary Lynch (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

message: 1. Quality of Information: 2/2
Comment – This paper is similar to a research paper in giving a lot of information. It may be beneficial to give an overall synopsis or overview in the first section where as the version submitted dives straight into the information. 
2. Article size: 2/2
3. Readability: 1/2
Comment – There are multiple grammatical errors such as “The need for neural tissue engineering arises from the difficulty of the nerve cells and neural tissues regenerate on their own after neural damage.“ Also the article does not flow very well. 
4. Refs: 2/2
5. Links: 2/2
6. Responsive to comments: 2/2
7. Formatting: 1/2
Comment – Overall, this article reads more as a research paper than an encyclopedia article. There is inconsistent use of acronyms such as microRNA(miRNA) vs BDNF(brain-derived neurotrophic factor). 
8. Writing: 1/2
Comment – Opinions are inserted in the intro where it says “are exciting potential techniques” and “may someday allow scientists.” If these are from review papers, the statements and potential for the future should be cited. 
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2/2
10. Outstanding?: 1/2
Comment – There are multiple grammatical and the article resembles a research paper. It may be beneficial to have others proofread your article before the final submission.  
_______________
Total:   16 out of 20
** All comments are based on version submitted for grading 
AlexLee90 (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Reviews
Talk:Neuroanthropology

message: Where did the references for the overview section come from? Also, can't there be a longer description of the definition of neuroanthropology? Nlubin12 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I tagged this article as 'essay like' due to the language use throughout. The whole subject is poorly defined and speculative. I made this clear in the intro, but the rest of the article needs redoing to match. I'm not saying it's pseudoscience but it certainly needs better evidence. How does it relate to epigenetics, for instance?--Cuthbert Bargepole (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay like
Talk:Neuroglycopenia

message: My main observation of this article concurs entirely with the tag  - it does not cite any references. In fact, it does not even cite any other websites. Many claims are made in this article, but it would be good if we could have at least some references, even if just other websites, for at least some of them. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually I ignore this kind of thing, but it's always pissed me off. Once upon a time (like back in 2003-2005), many medical topics had no articles, many words in articles no linked definitions or explanations, and almost no articles had references. When articles were written, others were needed just to explain concepts and terms. This was called CONTENT--  and CONTENT, not the references, is the core of an encyclopedia. As WP has improved, because the CONTENT of many of the articles has improved, people have begun to ask for references. References enhance an article, no question, but if there were no content to start with, there would be no need for references, would there? So every time I see a blindingly stupid complaint like this, I imagine some idler lounging on a sidewalk watching people build a building and saying "ya know, it might be nice to have some glass in those windows...". What a contribution! So why don't you either write some content or contribute some references, and stop fantasizing that leaving notes like this makes any article here perceptibly better? We got WAYYYY too many people here who think suggesting what someone else should do is a positive contribution.    There. Got it out of my system, at least for now. I know I feel better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.83.163 (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: This article confuses hypoglycaemic (referring to all symptoms caused by hypoglycaemia and the symptoms caused by the bodes counter-actions) and neuroglycopaenic which purely indicates the mental symptoms directly caused by low blood glucose creating the energy deprivation.  These may result from the 'hypoglycaemia' reference.  The William's textbook of Endocrinolgy would be a better source here.  --91.85.58.163 (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neuroglycopaenic and Adrenergic Confusion