Talk:Amphetamine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Too complicated

This article could really use some significant simplification of language.

Had placed the effects in the lead before a discussion of which neurotransmitters it effects in an effort to make the beginning easier to understand and relevant to the general population.[1]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed "therapeutic doses" to "treatment doses" which is what it means in non technical terminology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with simplifying the language in amphetamine's lead and I agree that simpler/more accessible language should be used instead of technical terminology in the lead of any article, however, "treatment doses" sounds very odd to me (I've never heard/read that phrase before), which is why I changed it back to therapeutic.

I understand your desire to move the effects paragraph up, but I honestly think it's a bit weird to talk about that before the paragraph on pharmaceuticals/pharmacology due to how that paragraph is written (past-present coverage of amphetamine drugs, then pharmacological effect) and relates to the end of the preceding/first paragraph and beginning of the next/third one. It was initially written in that order to relate the pharmacological effect to its therapeutic effect, although the text doesn't directly relate the two effects anymore due to the change in wording that you introduced. I still think it's more logical to leave it in this order though since the 1st paragraph ends with historical indications and its current status as a pharmaceutical drug and the 2nd starts by mentioning historical amph pharmacueticals (Benzedrine-branded products).

Is it really that big of an issue to have the clinical effects listed in the 3rd lead paragraph instead of the 2nd? I don't mind rephrasing the lead paragraphs in order to cover these effects in the 2nd paragraph while still making it read/flow well overall as long as there's a good reason to do this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tweaking the pharmaceuticals table for Adzenys (and Dyanavel)

1. In the table Adzenys XR should probably be listed as an ODT (orally disintegrating tablet), a significant distinction.
2. Adzenys XR is not a 3:1 (D:L) ratio of salts because Adzenys is not composed of salts. The drug is never described as salts but the doses are measured of base amphetamine. It is a a 3:1 ratio of base. The confusion occurs because Adzenys XR is considered (functionally) bioequivalent to Adderall XR. (Why would Neos elect or be permitted to measure dose units of base?)
3. Pharmaceuticals composed of bases (Adzenys XR and Dyanavel XR) might list ratios in brackets—perhaps noted in the header: (D:L) ratio of salts [base]—or something similar to accommodate them.
4. We can list a USAN for Adzenys XR. IMO the table's USAN should probably be amphetamine and dextroamphetamine because of the D>L ratio; the same for Dyanavel XR. But USANC seems to consider any mix of enantiomers to be amphetamine, so this should be used.

— Box73 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Guess I didn't really read the Rx info that carefully since I didn't notice it wasn't a salt-based formulation. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The listing of (salts), (base), (pro-drug) is reasonable. I hedged on that because outside Adderall it makes no difference. Thanks for tweaking the "recently". Re the "Marketing start date" I added the "(listed brand)" because of the ambiguity. Dextroamphetamine sulfate IR tabs were obviously introduced before 2013, yet is is likewise misleading to imply Zenzedi was first marketed in 1937 (circa). It is further complicated by amphetamine sulfate tabs with the gap in availability. Should we list the intro date for Benzedrine sulfate tabs or Evekeo? How do you think this should be handled?

Re above I go with "therapeutic dose" too. I'll comment above a bit later. — Box73 (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the marketing start date with the initial approval date. The marketing start date refers to the date the brand was first marketed with FDA-approval, while the approval date applies to the drug product. The approval date is the same as the marketing start date for the brand that was marketed when the drug product was first approved. The FDA lists the marketing start date of every approved brand on its website. In any event, the marketing start date should be listed in one of the refs at the end of the row for every brand in that table. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There is only one problem, which is unique: Zenzedi. It was first marketed in a field of existing generics, which were introduced before Dexedrine and Dextrstat (IR tablets) were discontinued. There is nothing new about Zenzedi but using its date is misleading. Consider, if this were 2012, Dexedrine and Dextrostat were discontinued but before Zenzedi, how would this be handled? I would guess Dexedrine and its intro marketing date would be listed. (This is different than Benzedrine/Evekeo which was not continuous with no preexisting generic.) In our case the marketing start date should not represent the current (Zenzedi) brand but the Dexedrine IR brand marketing start date, IMO. — Box73 (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't really follow you when you say Zenzedi's marketing start date is misleading. Why does this brand have anything to do with the marketing of Dexedrine or Dextrostat? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Selective transclusion source markup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

@Pppery: I realize that you mean well with your recent edits, but these have introduced a lot of paragraph whitespaces, additions of intentionally omitted/noincluded content (mainly hatnotes and some content in the OD section), and missing sections in the target articles (2 in the Adderall article). The LST method of transclusion isn't better or worse than the non-labeled method (as described in WP:SELTRANS) which this article uses. They're completely interchangeable methods of selective transclusion, so I don't really see the benefit of converting the source markup to the LST method. Frietjes also attempted to convert the current selective transclusion markup to LST a while back, but ended up introducing transclusion errors as well.

I'm going to go ahead and revert the markup back to the non-labeled transclusion version since this produces the same section transclusions as the LST method after correcting the current errors. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333: And, in doing your revert to the other method of selective transclusion, you also reverted my other change in that block of edits, moving the {{when pagename is}} to the transcluding pages. I have reinstated it.Pppery (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about keeping those statements here, so that seems fine. They were only included on this page to have the entire section for each article located in a centralized location, since it's easier to edit 1 page instead of 4. There is another one of those templates on this page ({{if pagename}}), but it won't be possible to move that one to the transcluded article due to its location. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

(in reply to the initial post) @Seppi333: There are multiple reasons I think that the LST method is better for selective transclusions. First of all, the <onlyinclude> method introduces potentially confusing template and parser function syntax into the wikicode of an article, where as the LST <section begin=name />...<section end=name /> looks much clearer and in some cases (where the {{#section-h}} parser function can be used) isn't even necessary. Secondly, if you forget to specify which section to include (or didn't know that selective transclusion was being used in the first place) (resulting in {{Amphetamine}}, it is counterintuitive to have all of the selectively transcludable material shown without any kind of break. Using LST in this case would result in the entire article being shown, as one would expect when transcluding something.

Thirdly, the non-LST method is explicitly described in WP:SELTRANS as being more complicated. (quoted text below)

The following subsections are about a more complicated way to make selective transclusion without using the extension.

Pppery (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The advantages of one method over another are fairly trivial, since coding for noinclude/onlyinclude/page-specific text transclusions just involves different markup with each method. The method of transclusion that is used in this article is really not that complicated - anyone who has written a few templates before has probably encountered all of the components that are necessary for creating the selective transclusion (i.e., parametrization, onlyinclude, and the ifeq parser function). An editor that isn't familiar with selective transclusion markup probably won't understand what they're looking at with LST markup either though. The non-LST method treats an article exactly like a template, allowing for parametrization that is unrelated to the selective transclusion. Even so, there are (somewhat more cumbersome) workarounds when using the LST method, like {{if pagename}} templates. I agree that it's probably easier for editors who are unfamiliar with templates to create selective transclusions with the LST method though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333: The thing is though, that articles are not templates and thus should not behave like they are templates. The second part of your comment - Anyone who has written a few templates before ... is irrelevant, as there is probably of group of people who have not written templates and would not understand the non-LST method. On the other hand, the general meaning of <section> tags should be clear enough to anyone who has the word Section (typography) in their vocabulary.

You also seem to have ignored my argument about not specifying a section. Pppery (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If I wasn't familiar with LST syntax prior to seeing <section begin=name />...<section end=name /> in an article, I literally would think that it was either erroneous, deprecated, or redundant syntax with the section header markup for demarcating a section with that title.
There's no policy on WP that says I can't treat an article like a template, as there's nothing sacred about the template namespace. If I believe that using an article as a template may provide a benefit over creating an independent template, I will generally transclude an article. E.g., the FOSB template you made has just 2 people watchlisting it - you and me. If someone vandalizes it, we are now the only individuals who are likely to respond. If that table were left at FOSB, it would have all the page watchers of that article to serve this purpose.
Lastly, I didn't see your point about the section; if someone doesn't know what they're doing, they use the talk page. If they don't specify a section, they will see a full article transclusion, realize they don't know what they're doing, and should then head to the talk page. It's literally the same thing if someone were to bork the LST syntax - suppose a newbie editor unwittingly uses template markup instead of HTML when demarcating the section transclusion. What then? (Talk page) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333:On the topic of treating articles as templates, it's much clearer to me to see the code {{FOSB addiction table}} compared to {{:FOSB}}. The former clearly is some sort of table related to FOSB, where as the lattter example, transcluding an article, gives no indication of what is being transcluded. Your third sentence about template vandalism is also false - recent changes patrollers will catch most vandalism - and to them it doesn't matter whether the vandalism goes to an article or to a template. Pppery (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Ah, yes, you're quite right. Page patrollers will always catch more IP vandal edits. This is clearly a universal truth/tautology, like in the related addiction template {{addiction glossary}} which has 3 watchlister reverts vs 2 page patrollers who never edited the page before [2]. Oh wait. That was a counterexample. And it's a good one for demonstrating you're wrong about the significance of watchlisters too because the number of watchlisters is really small on that page. Anyway, this thread is so off-topic by now that it's not worth keeping an open discussion under the heading.

In a nutshell, this page is not converting to LST on a whim. It would require a consensus and there clearly is none here. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To do

Resolved

1. Create a switch statement for parametrized alignment (left/center/right) within a nested table for {{Psychostimulant addiction}}, {{Amphetamine pharmacodynamics}}, {{Amphetamine pharmacokinetics}}, and {{Catecholamine and trace amine biosynthesis}} (Note to self: this syntax can't be added directly to this article because it will bork the selective transclusions; it has to be added to the templates).
   • If this improves mobile browser viewing of these images w/o any rendering issues in this article, the 3 articles with amphetamine transclusions (Adderall, Dextroamphetamine, Lisdexamfetamine), and all other articles where the templates are used, revise {{Annotated image 4}} to add this functionality to all AI4-templated images (will need to simultaneously remove this table syntax from the above 4 templates, {{Glycolysis summary}}, the AI4 templates using File:HMB synthesis.svg in β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid#Synthesis and β-methylbutyric acid#Uses, and any other AI4-templated images that are currently nested within a wikitable when updating this functionality).
     Will need to thoroughly test this functionality on different mobile/desktop web browsers with all 3 alignment options using the 4 templates listed above before updating {{AI4}}.
      Unnecessary - resolved by a software update for mobile devices
2. Check for new literature reviews on amphetamine that were published since July 2016.  Done

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Switch statement options for table alignment
Left: style="float: left;" Center: style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border: none;" Right: style="float: right;"

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amphetamine. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20131122143804/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C%2D38.8/page-24.html to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/page-24.html#h-28

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Goodman & Gilman's textbook

@Garzfoth: I noticed that you wanted to go through and WP:V the text cited by this ref, based upon your edit summary from special:diff/720255246/720433631. I hosted a lot of paywalled refs on my google site a while ago. The Goodman & Gilman's ref is hosted here. The highlighted sentences in that reference support the statements that are cited by that ref in this article.

In case you care to check any others, most of the other paywalled refs that are cited in this article are hosted on this webpage. The file names on that page correspond to the reference name defined in quotes in the source code, as in: <ref name="file name">{{citation template goes here}}</ref>.
The named reference for the Goodman & Gilman's textbook was defined as "Westfall" in the source code (i.e., <ref name="Westfall">), so the ref is hosted on the google page under that file name. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Thanks, you just saved me quite a bit of time.

I still have access to almost all paywalled refs through my university but that access will be expiring in under a month as I am on leave from university right now so I'll need to figure something out until I return to academic studies and regain access to paywalled refs.... I have a ridiculous number of studies saved locally, but that's not enough and I'll probably just look into requesting access to a few journals via the wiki library. Your site will help, thank you for informing me about it! Garzfoth (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The only reason they're hosted there is for facilitating WP:V. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Neural damage in animals

@Seppi333: The second sentence of the medical section says this:

Long-term amphetamine exposure in some animal species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage

Should this be qualified with "at some doses" or "sufficiently high doses"? And isn't "can" a more concise and direct, and less definite (doesn't imply 100% reliability), way of phrasing "is known to"? Exercisephys (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I never bothered to qualify it because the dose (therapeutic vs binge) that produces neurotoxicity in animals depends on the animal (e.g., rats/mice/rhesus monkeys). That said, the phrase "at sufficiently high doses" seems fine. I'd prefer to use the wording "has been shown to..." here as opposed to "can" since it suggests that there's documented and unequivocal evidence of an effect as opposed to a hypothetical undocumented effect based upon pharmacodynamics (i.e., amphetamine can be neurotoxic to humans at very high doses at least partially due to increased oxidative stress, but to date this assertion has not actually been documented in case reports). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

I'm an addiction psychiatrist and a subject expert on ADHD and addiction. The phrasing of the cognitive enhancing effect of amphetamine in this article is WAY too strong. The articles cited are primarily for animal models, not human cognitive performance. There is actually a LACK of research results in human cognitive performance.

Sluox (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not really clear to me as to what particular statements you're concerned with. Can you clarify? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amphetamine. 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/20110713045851/http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Wilson%20-%20Mixing%20the%20Medicine.pdf to http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Wilson%20-%20Mixing%20the%20Medicine.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/page-24.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amphetamine. 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/20161013103757/http://www.trispharma.com/DXRUSPI.pdf to http://www.trispharma.com/DXRUSPI.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hyperthermia/Hyperpyrexia

@Doc James: Should I describe "core body temperature ≥ 40 °C" as hyperthermia, "severe hyperthermia", or hyperpyrexia? The ref that cites that text in the Amphetamine#Toxicity and psychosis section calls a core temperature over 40 °C "hyperthermia", but our articles on hyperthermia and fever (which hyperpyrexia redirects to) classifies core temperature ≥ 40 °C or ≥ 41.0 °C as "hyperpyrexia", via the transcluded template shown on the right.

Hyperthermia and hyperpyrexia are respectively listed as mild and severe OD symptoms in this article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You could use [[hyperpyrexia|very high body temperature]] or hyperpyrexia Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Reflist

Lede readability

I can appreciate a complex subject, but the lede has some readability issues for a general audience (and too for a FA). My quick two cents, if this hasn't already been discussed to death somewhere, is that "enantiomers" can be better explained in prose as a technical/jargon term. I could attempt a shot at this, but I'm thinking more like linking "mirror image stereoisomers" to "enantiomers" and either putting the term in parentheses or introducing it some other way. Similarly, do CNS and ADHD (the acronyms) need to be mentioned in the lede? The acronyms are mentioned below at first mention whereafter they are actually invoked as acronyms, but the acronyms don't appear as second time in the lede, so a bit superfluous. Thirdly, with the sourcing footnotes—I think this style has its uses and is certainly cleaner than throwing a load of footnotes into the paragraph, but it would be nice if there was some indication as to what facts are available in each source. A lot of work goes into verification so a little hand-holding here would go a long way. In historian footnotes, for example, the author may explain what sources are most pertinent in the footnote, as in "Read X or Y for general background. For more on its treatment applications, see Z, Q, A." And so on. Also, wouldn't it be worth prioritizing the cultural uses of the stimulant closer to the top of the lede? Perhaps this is my topic ignorance showing, but I imagine it's more important for readers to get a solid definition of how amphetamines are used in society and how they function well before hitting multiple terms of jargon or being linked to its chemical compound information. I see that a lot of love has gone into this article, so commendations all around—just some extra feedback in case anyone is listening and interested.  czar 06:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with defining what an enantiomer is in a note next to that word? TBH, I don't think the word "stereoisomers" is more understanding/accessible to the average person relative to the word "enantiomers" - they're both jargon.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence is the reason that there are abbreviations following those terms in the lead. If it were up to me, I'd use the expanded terms without abbreviations in the lead and only define those abbreviations at the first occurrence of each term in the body, but that approach isn't consistent with what the MOS says. The ADHD abbreviation is redefined a 2nd time in the body solely to facilitate readability in the medical uses section.

I suppose that I could implement the footnote method that you described in the paragraph reference notes if you think it would help. That said, every sentence in the lead except for the 2 sentences on what the word "amphetamine" refers to (i.e., Amphetamine properly refers to a specific chemical, the racemic free base, which is equal parts of the two enantiomers, levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine, in their pure amine forms. However, the term is frequently used informally to refer to any combination of the enantiomers, or to either of them alone.) is simply a summary of a sentence in the body of the article or - in the case of 1 sentence - a subarticle (the clause about being a euphoriant and aphrodisiac is covered in history and culture of substituted amphetamines). Consequently, the lead sentences could also be verified by simply looking at the sources that cite the analogous statements that are covered in the body.

Personally, I think it's more straightforward to say what amphetamine is (i.e., a specific mixture of 2 compounds, as opposed to say a plant, a mixture of a bunch of drugs, or a pink bunny rabbit) before saying how amphetamine is/has been used.

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback - I'll tweak the footnotes as you described when I get a chance; I probably won't get around to it immediately though since there is a backlog of items on my to-do list for this article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Quotes

@Materialscientist: This revision is the revision at the time this article was promoted to FA status. As is evident, a number of the quotes in the article as of today were there when it was promoted - very little has changed since then (Edit: after looking through the source, a few of the longer quotes from the FA revision, particularly the ones related to ΔFosB, were censored a while back). The consensus to include every single one of those quotes is established by the promotion of that revision of this article to FA status. Hence, to remove all of the quotes that were already in the article at the time of the FA promotion, you need to get consensus to remove them. I'm actually fine with cutting down the size of the longer quotes that are in the article, but I'm rather adamantly opposed to simply deleting every quote simply because you don't like reference quotes.

Moreover, I asked you nicely on your talk page to simply censor quotes that you find too lengthy instead of delete them outright. You've simply ignored my request even though censoring and deleting the quotes produce the exact same output when the source is rendered as a web page. I don't see what the issue is here with honoring my request. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Seppi333 on this, I don't see the need to remove quotes within ref tags in the first place unless they constitute copyright infringement (and I'm pretty confident that all these fall under fair use). While quotes are not strictly necessary for a FA, the article is improved by having them, and as Seppi333 establishes above the promotion to FA was done with the quotes in place, so substantial consensus would be necessary to scrub them from the article (and I don't see what possible grounds anyone could have to remove fair use quotes from the source that are present within reference tags -- they do not disturb the flow of the article and they add a great deal of value for people who are interested in the relevant contextual text within the used reference, the only "pruning" achievable by their removal is in the character size of the references section, which should never be an acceptable reason to outright remove quotes). Garzfoth (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Speed/Magnitude of DA release and effects

@Seppi333: Seppi, what section(if any) do you think that this source could be placed along with the apparent relationship between the speed and magnitude of DA release and the intensity of reward and locomotor stimulation. ThanksPetergstrom (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I noticed that this source includes a graph of this which could be uploaded to commons since the review is published under a CC-BY license. There's two things that make me hesitant to add this though: all of this data comes from rats and the route of administration is intraperitoneal (amphetamine is never administered by the IP route in humans, either recreationally or medically). The interspecies differences in TAAR1 ligand binding profiles makes it pretty doubtful that the magnitude is representative of humans. The rate at which it occurs likely isn't reflective of the typical medical use either since oral administration would very likely result a slower onset than IP administration, although I suppose it depends upon where in the abdomen it was injected. I can't seem to find what you were referring to about reward, but w.r.t. locomotor activity, what is described here about rats differs from what occurs in humans who take low doses for ADHD (i.e., it makes them fidget less or not at all). Granted, higher doses of amphetamine will similarly increase locomotor activity even in ADHD individuals.

In a nutshell, results obtained from animal studies with this drug generally are not reflective of humans; this is largely due to the fact that amphetamine has marked interspecies differences in its pharmacodynamics (e.g., TAAR1 binding) and pharmacokinetics (i.e., the rate of metabolism and its metabolites). If you ever happen to come across anything on these topics that involves human research, I'd be very interested in reading it and would probably be inclined to add it to the article though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Seppi333:I was referring more to quotations like this

As indicated above, it is the combination of the rapid rate of increase and magnitude of effect that accounts for the powerful stimulant effects of amphetamine."

The kinetics of d-amphetamine when taken orally make it less rewarding (pleasurable) than cocaine or methamphetamine. Cocaine, whether snorted or smoked as ‘crack’ in particular, enters the brain very quickly, and appears even to be concentrated in the brain relative to plasma; this explains the high rewarding potential of this drug: faster brain entry leads to a greater ‘high’.

Petergstrom (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to say that its effects on DA/NE largely account for its stimulant effects. Based upon a cursory look at what has currently been stated, this is more or less implied in the article at the moment, but it may as well be stated outright. So, I'm okay with adding this. I'll look for the best place to put this within the next 24 hours and then ping you once I've added it.

The latter statement would necessarily go into the pharmacology section since it's discussing the neuropsychopharmacology of amphetamine, cocaine, and meth in the context of pharmacokinetics (i.e., pleasure/reward/euphoria relative to the rate/degree of brain penetration/distribution), but I don't think it's generally a good practice to compare the pharmacology of different drugs in articles on individual compounds for various reasons. I think the best approach would be to simply say that amphetamine can induce euphoria in this article, and then cover that statement in Euphoria#Stimulants, although some alternative articles for adding that statement might include pleasure and addiction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Seppi333: What the paper is pretty much saying is that the magnitude of the stimulant effects is dependent upon the magnitude and speed of the DA/NE release, which is in turn dependent upon both the speed that which the drug reaches the brain, and on more specific receptor/protein interactions. I think something along those lines should work well in the pharmacology section.Petergstrom (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding this to that paragraph in the pharmacodynamics section was a good choice IMO. The context of the sentence you added was directly relevant to the paragraph and the preceding sentence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The lethal amphetamine dose

The lethal amphetamine dose is 20 to 25 mg/kg. For a regular person this could be about 1.6 grams. Tolerance can lead to up to 15g being survived.

Benjamin (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Mobile browsers

I recently updated {{AI4}} to address a rendering issue on mobile browsers (i.e., when viewed on a mobile browser, the right side of the annotated images in this article would be cut off due to their large widths; this no longer happens). If anyone sees any abnormal layout issues while viewing this article on a mobile device or desktop browser, I'd appreciate feedback on that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Editors of this article

The "Amphetamines: Potent Recreational Drug of Abuse" article which was published in the Journal of Addiction Research and Therapy plagiarizes a massive amount text (i.e., over 20 paragraphs) from this Wikipedia article by republishing the text (much of which was superficially modified) without attribution, which is required by the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Since the text of this Wikipedia article is only available under that Creative Commons copyright license, the republication of article text from amphetamine without attribution in this journal article is copyright infringement. Wikipedia editors own the copyright for their contributions to Wikipedia (under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license), so if you've made contributions to this article prior to March 10, 2017 in the "Side effects", "Overdose", or "History, society, and culture" sections, or in the 1st paragraph of the "Chemistry" section, the authors of this journal article are infringing upon your copyright.

Consequently, I recently notified the editorial staff of the journal that published this journal article and OMICS Publishing Group (NB: the journal is part of OMICS) about said copyright infringement. I also notified ResearchGate since the authors of the journal article uploaded the full text of their article to that website on this page. So far, I've only received a response from ResearchGate; they promptly removed the full text article from their website and left only the abstract in place, since the abstract doesn't contain any copyrighted text from Wikipedia or copyrighted images from Wikimedia Commons.

I'm hoping to get the journal article retracted or retracted and republished with corrections (i.e., with appropriate attribution for the copyrighted content from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons); however, I'm not sure at this point if the editorial staff of the journal or OMICS will take action. If they don't respond to my initial notice of copyright infringement or subsequent notices (i.e., a follow-up reminder about the issue 1 week from now, then a cease and desist letter after another week), I'm going to submit a DMCA takedown notice to the appropriate entities to get this link taken down by their online service provider. Also, I'm not sure if that academic journal publishes a paper version of their articles; if it does, legal action is probably the only recourse if they're not willing to resolve this issue of their own volition. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog, Exercisephys, Box73, AmericanLemming, John, Anypodetos, SwampFox556, and Garzfoth: FYI, this section directly applies to all of you. I checked the edits that each of you made to this article prior to March 2017, and all of you contributed to or modified the text in one or more of the 20-some paragraphs from this article that were substantially duplicated in the aforementioned journal article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking into who I need to email about this (i.e. who to complain to at OMICS) and how to phrase it. Given that this is OMICS after all I'm not sure that we'll get much in the way of results, but I'm definitely in support of issuing a DMCA notice if they ignore us. This kind of utterly blatant copyright infringement of Wikipedia in an academic journal is completely ridiculous. OMICS is proxied by Cloudflare (abuse@cloudflare.com), which has a reputation for ignoring illegal activity on its network as long as it doesn't cause too much trouble, so it may be difficult to get Cloudflare to respond to a DMCA (although it seems that some people have had positive experiences with Cloudflare and DMCAs, so we might be in luck after all). You can also try the email on the whois record for OMICS (support@omicsgroup.net) when issuing that DMCA notice. I think I'm going to email support@omicsgroup.net and both of the Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy contacts (addiction@scholarlyjournals.org / editor.jart@omicsonline.net) with my initial complaint. These two email addresses along with a few others (marketing/author proofs - probably not worth trying), a few phone numbers (in case anyone wants to try calling them), and a contact form can be found at https://www.omicsonline.org/contact-addiction-research-therapy-open-access.php. Garzfoth (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Email has been written and sent. I ended up tacking on medical@omicsonline.com as well for good measure. Garzfoth (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Seppi333: I was sent an edited PDF that they claim corrects the issues. Said PDF is now claimed to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? Not clear), and Wikipedia is cited, which seems to satisfy them. Typical OMICS. I guess the continued clear-cut violations of their journal's guidelines (including the fricking ethics guidelines!) can be ignored when a $1500 fee and zero ethics are on the line?

Anyways, if you don't mind being the next one to respond, that'd be great. You should have access to my email, which cites the OMICS policies being violated, so if you want to explore that tangent, feel free to. I went through the "revised" PDF and noticed that the images are still quite clearly not correctly attributed individually like they're supposed to be (since they're each a separate entity), you may want to point that out. I'm not sure that OMICS is going to listen if we point out that they omitted the mandatory link/URL to the CC license, or that they failed to sufficiently indicate changes or even attribute the original work, but this is a headache since it's kinda clear that OMICS doesn't care. Garzfoth (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I replied with an explanation as to how they can establish compliance with our licenses. It's actually incredibly simple for them to add appropriate attribution for Wikipedia's article text in their article. Per the WMF's terms of use, all they really have to do is include the following statement in their article:
This article uses material from the Wikipedia articles "Adderall" and "Amphetamine", which are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.
When this approach is used, the article's authors are attributed indirectly via the page history (see letter g in this Terms of Use section). I informed of two ways that I'd find acceptable in terms of attribution for those images.

In any event, I received a very prompt response (<3 hours) from the journal after I sent my notice to them; consequently, I think they genuinely do want to resolve this problem. I intend to work with them until it's all sorted out. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Was this just a fault of the publisher? Another approach would be to notify the academic departments of the universities of the paper's authors, particularly the lead author. This is academically deplorable and any reputable university will act, even several years past. That the material came from Wikipedia (sadly) will may also raise issues.

I have experienced this unattributed reuse with a non-scientific article and am quite disturbed by it. I am especially angered with unattributed use of graphics which Seppi333 created and/or substantially improved. These comprehensive images are memorable, and now one could mistakenly assume Wikipedia lifted them from that article. I see this as a crime against both honest scientists and honest Wikipedians. Forgive my rant. — βox73 (৳alk) 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the publisher is at fault for not checking for plagiarism and the author is at fault for not providing adequate attribution for compliance with the terms of the copyright license under which Wikipedia text and my images are released. In any event, the authors chose to used an in-text attribution method instead of a banner message about the use of Wikipedia text. Not all of the reused Wikipedia text is cited, but a lot of it is; it was also clear to me from my communication with the lead author that he wanted to provide adequate attribution to the Wikipedians who wrote this article, so I'm satisfied with the in-text citations that were added. W.r.t. my images, a credit line is normally required at the end of the image caption, but I allowed him to use a modified credit line that links back to this article for attribution for those images (i.e., "adapted from [numbered citation to this WP article]"), since it's clear from here where they came from.

Anyway, as of now I feel that this issue has been adequately resolved. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Moved discussion

Moved from Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies

Above Seppi333 writes "I should point out that neither of the medical FAs I've written use prescriptive language that isn't attributed in the same sentence to the cited source":

1. "amphetamine ... is also contraindicated in people currently experiencing advanced arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), glaucoma (increased eye pressure), hyperthyroidism (excessive production of thyroid hormone), or moderate to severe hypertension" The source for this is the patient information leaflets by Arbor Pharmaceuticals LLC and Shire US Inc. As noted above "is contraindicated in" is just medical jargon for "should not be taken by" and is medical opinion. Would the reader benefit from attributing in-text? It would, as I note above, give a false impression that those are the opinions just of Arbor Pharmaceuticals, and Shire, rather than being more widely held. We'd certainly be wary of that if we started attributing the indications sections to pharmaceutical company patient information leaflets.
2. "People who have experienced allergic reactions to other stimulants in the past or who are taking monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) are advised not to take amphetamine" this is the same as "should not take amphetamine" but written in the passive voice. They "are advised" by who? Wikipedia? Experts?, Big Pharma? The Government?
3. "These agencies also state that anyone with anorexia nervosa, bipolar disorder, depression, hypertension, liver or kidney problems, mania, psychosis, Raynaud's phenomenon, seizures, thyroid problems, tics, or Tourette syndrome should monitor their symptoms while taking amphetamine" I can see you jumping through hoops to in-text attribute that advice, but the result is awful.
4. "Drug abuse" the article uses the term "abuse" several times. This is a concept without formal definition, and which there is considerable disagreement about what it means. Merely using the term is a value judgement and opinion about what consitiutes "abuse".
5. "Addiction is a serious risk with heavy recreational amphetamine use but is unlikely to arise from typical long-term medical use at therapeutic doses." Just a note that the quotes from your sources do not support the claim in the latter half.
6. "According to one review, an optimal dosing regimen is to administer it in one 1 gram dose, three times a day, since this ensures elevated plasma concentrations of HMB throughout the day" The source for this PMID 27106402 appears to be just a narrative review. In other words, the opinions of Thomas Brioche, currently a postdoctoral researcher on the “muscle remodeling and signaling” team at Montpellier University; Allan F. Pagano, a Ph.D. student at the University of Montpellier on the “muscle remodeling and signaling” team; Guillaume Py, Ph.D., a cosupervisor of the “muscle remodeling and signaling” team at Montpellier University; and Angèle Chopard, a Professor at the University of Montpellier, who teaches physiology and anatomy in the Faculty of Sports Sciences, and a scientific member of the “muscle remodeling and signaling” team. So here we have opinion about optimal dosing that isn't even medical opinion (these people are just scientists, students, lecturers), isn't consensus opinion, isn't backed up by anything approaching a MEDRS recommended RCT, and in-text attributed to "one review". Seppi333, while a systematic review can have conclusions that may appear to be objective, a "narrative review" can't have an opinion, any more than "according to some book, ..." or "a newspaper article I read said that ..." Are you really going to in-text attribute Brioche, Pagano, Guillaume and Chopard? You can't attribute the "muscle remodeling and signaling" team because we don't know if their opinions represent the rest of the team. And I'm sure the University of Montpellier would be reluctant to take credit for supposed medical advice by a bunch of PhD students and their sports science lecturer.

Mostly your medical FAs have been about pharmaceutical compounds, which can be described objectively and factually. As soon as we start talking about people, humans, things get messy and less clear. What is abuse? What is optimal? What is safe? All just opinions. I'm not raising these points so you must go fix those articles, but just to show that it is actually hard. And we need to apply some common sense rather than dogma. -- Colin°^Talk 07:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"People who have experienced allergic reactions to other stimulants in the past ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit to this article Sandy; I think that your revision was an improvement.

In any event, since this was an extended discussion about the text in this article, I moved the entire discussion from Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies to this talk page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Colin I changed your bulleted list formatting to a numbered list. My responses are below.

1. Please place your mouse cursor over Special:Permalink/838344606#cite_ref-95 (or simply read Special:Permalink/838344606#cite_note-95); this note provides context for the entire paragraph, including that statement.
2. Please read the first sentence in Amphetamine#Contraindications.
3. If you say so.
4. I agree that the term "drug abuse" is a poor choice of wording for the associated medical problem. I've avoided using that term as much as possible in the articles I've written, including the addiction article which I've extensively revised. However, the cited sources use that term, so I don't have any leeway in the matter.
5. I don't include every relevant assertion to cited article text in the quote parameter of a citation. Those references are used a number of times in the article.
6. While this is about the HMB article, this is just 1 list item out of 6, so I've left it here. In any event, I really don't follow your argument that "According to one review, ..." $\Rightarrow$ "According to the 'muscle remodeling and signaling' team, ..." or "According to the University of Montpellier, ...". The phrase "According to one review, ..." implies "According to the authors of said document, ..."; however, if you want me to be more explicit, I'd be happy to write "According to the authors of one review, ...".

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding a table of binding affinities

As the title, I think it will enhance the readability of this article, making it even perfect. =) --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 14:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would actually be particularly useful because it only has 1 known high affinity receptor target in humans: TAAR1. I suppose I could add the binding data if you're really interested in that though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't monoamine transporter affinities help us determine the amount that goes into each respective type of monoaminergic neuron? 74.70.36.141 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I'll work on adding it soon. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

PMID 11071707 - reuptake and release from cloned human monoamine transporters.

IUPHAR VMAT2 cites PMID 8643547, which includes more data than IUPHAR (covers both enantiomers and kinetics at VMAT1 and VMAT2) on this page: [3].

Need to look for other sources. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Mydayis

I haven't read through the whole prescribing information sheet for Mydaysis, but this "new" drug looks like it's a near perfect clone of Adderall XR with an almost trivial difference in pharmacomkinetics (i.e., the mean plasma concentrations of d-amphetamine over time from Mydayis relative to Adderall XR diverge slightly after 4 hours and converge at 10 hours).

Anyway, I was wondering which article others thought Mydayis should redirect to: Adderall or amphetamine? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Mydayis is essentially "Adderall XXR" - bioequivalent in clinical trials to Adderall XR plus a booster dose of IR taken 8 hours later. Very similar release mechanism, just an extended/modified version of what was used in Adderall XR. Anyways, Mydayis should obviously redirect to Adderall for the time being, and Adderall should probably get a new section specifically to discuss formulation-specific differences in greater detail. I can probably write an abbreviated summary of Mydayis' development if you want me to, I've been following that for years and have a decent amount of research on it saved that I can cite. Personally I still think the Adderall article should just be renamed outright to Mixed Amphetamine Salts, even more so now that Shire has abandoned the Adderall branding for their new variant of Adderall, but I don't really expect that to end up happening, irregardless of how much sense it would make. Garzfoth (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to add whatever you think is worth covering. I'm less opposed to the idea of renaming that article now compared to before, but there's still the issue of no official nonproprietary name (usan/inn/etc) for that formulation. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I made a rather lengthy and well-sourced argument for naming it "Mixed Amphetamine Salts" a few years ago (Talk:Adderall/Archive_1#Proposing_a_name_change_to_Mixed_Amphetamine_Salts). Given that Mydayis is going to be marketed starting this fall, and that the Mydayis product monograph concurs with the prior XR/IR monographs in its usage of the term "mixed amphetamine salts" (in fact it seems to use the term even more frequently than the prior monographs did), I think it's not unreasonable to re-examine that name. The existence of Adzenys and Dyanavel actually supports the usage of the term much more strongly than Mydayis alone does as both of them also use the term as or even more extensively in their monographs than Mydayis does and are compared explicitly against "mixed amphetamine salts" for establishing equivalence in order to obtain FDA approval. So clearly a mixed amphetamine salts article would have to cover Adderall IR, Adderall XR, Mydayis, Adzenys, and Dyanavel - which is not at all dissimilar to how methylphenidate covers a large variety of different formulations of methylphenidate. We would have to do a little bit of rewriting so that the article was more generic in scope, but that wouldn't require too much work, and the same basic history still applies. I think this is the most logical way to reconcile the existence of five FDA-approved-as-equivalent MAS formulations. What do you think? Garzfoth (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Box73: I'm curious to know what you think. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I slightly prefer Adderall because of its common use, the lack of simplicity with "mixed amphetamine salts" and lack of official non-propriatary name. (I don't see a significant difference between the Mydayis curve and the pure Adderall XR curve from the Adderall XR label, adjusted for dose.)

Further, should the Adderall article be focusing on -- limited by -- the (mixed) salts or should we be be covering the ~3:1 proportion of enantiomers, including Adzenys ODT-XR and Dyanavel XR?

It appears Garzfoth and I share this idea. -- βox73 (৳alk) 22:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be called Dextroamphetamine/Amphetamine? That's a common generic name, and it fits both mixed salts and liquid formulations. 74.70.36.141 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@74.70.36.141: The name "dextroamphetamine/amphetamine" is not in common use outside of pharmacies. The name "mixed amphetamine salts" on the other hand is in very common use in the scientific literature, in the FDA's literature, in the drug labels, and in Shire literature. And of course the name "Adderall" is in very common use outside of these cases (i.e. by laymen). Garzfoth (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

New edit notice for this page

Not really relevant anymore

I figured I should mention here that I've just created an edit notice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/Amphetamine; this notice appears at the top of the page when editing this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amphetamine&action=edit). There have been several instances in the past few months where an edit completely borked the 3 pages where this article is transcluded, so I've covered this in the edit notice. Since I copied the edit notice template from Template:Editnotices/Page/Parkinson's disease, I also included the part from that template about discussing significant changes to the text/images on the talk page before making them in the article. If anyone has any suggestions for changes to the edit notice for this page, please let me know. I'm open to modifying it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Just to clarify, the reason I created this notice is that the removal of the 2 curly brackets – i.e., "}}" – in this edit produced only minor formatting issues in this article (i.e., "{{#ifeq:Overdose|Overdose|" appeared at the beginning of the overdose section), but it caused the Adderall article to render/appear like this to readers of that page: pdf version of the Adderall article with transclusion errors. That edit caused the entire overdose section on this page to be transcluded along with each section-specific transclusion from this page to that one. The same occurred in the dextroamphetamine and lisdexamfetamine articles. Those transclusion errors persisted for about 7 hours until they were fixed with this edit. I'm hoping the edit notice will prevent editors from unwittingly introducing syntax errors in the transclusion templates that create problems like this; transclusion errors like this can result from adding a new template to the article with unbalanced brackets or, like the edit here did, removing either/both of the pairs of brackets for any of the WP:Selective transclusion templates. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I just updated the selective transclusion syntax in amphetamine, adderall, lisdexamfetamine, and dextroamphetamine to a newer method that circumvents the issue that I described in the collapse tab. I've cut the paragraph about selective transclusions in the edit notice since it's no longer possible for template syntax errors in this article to massively bork the articles that receive section transclusions from this one. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You see, I was right back in July 2016. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pppery: Touché. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead referencing

FYI: I'm going to remove the grouped end-of-paragraph references in the lead and replace them with the end-of-sentence citation format that was used in beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid at some point in the next 2-3 weeks years. If you object to this, you should probably say so now. I'll be highly disinclined to revert the citation style back to a grouped references after working on this due to the amount of time it'll take me to re-cite the lead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Seppi333/sandbox7#For Amphetamine's lead – need to double check WP:V for each sentence before replacing the current article lead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis vs Discovery

There are two articles on wikipedia mentioning 1887 for two contradictory ideas about amphetamine: synthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines)

and

discovery (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine)

I suggest modifying the main page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine) with the sentence:

Amphetamine was first synthesized in 1887 in Germany by Romanian chemist Lazăr Edeleanu who named it phenylisopropylamine. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.158.212 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I probably should've responded to this thread sooner, my apologies. Since amphetamine is not a natural product, it was discovered at the time of its initial synthesis. The two statements say basically the same thing provided that the reader knows that amphetamine is not a naturally occurring substance. IMO, stating when it was discovered is a little more illuminating than the date of its initial synthesis in the event the reader does not know that it's not a natural product. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead breaks on mobile phones

This is what the beginning of this page looks like on my Samsung Galaxy S7.

The {{nowrap}}ping of the full name causes the lead to break when viewed vertically. When viewed horizontally, there is enough space between the left border and the infobox, and the lead appears normally.

If nowrap is removed, the sentence would wrap right after "alpha-", which solves the issue (at least on my phone). Is there any particular reason why nowrap is used here? Which other articles would be affected by this? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Manifestation: No articles would be affected by its removal other than this one since no articles transclude amphetamine's lead section. Cutting the nowrap is fine, so I've removed it. Let me know if that fixed the problem. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Seppi333. Yup, that solves the problem. :-) What I meant with other articles is that I was wondering if this unnecessary nowrapping is also done elsewhere. I noticed that {{nowrap}} is also used in the lead of Methamphetamine. The full name is not very long, so that lead causes no problems on my Samsung Galaxy. However, mobile phones have very small screens, and nowrapping a name right next to an infobox could turn ugly if the name is very long. Yes, there is mobile view (which I hate and never use, I should say). But even then, I see no good reason why you would use nowrap on the name of a drug (or other substance). A very long word is by default never wrapped anyway. The only reason I can think of is that the user does not want the word to wrap at the hyphen (-) at the beginning. But this may be solved by replacing it with a minus sign (−), which the browser does not wrap. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

After seeing this at MDMA, I've opened a thread at Template talk:Nowrap#Wordbreak template. I think a new template, like {{breakwords}} or something, would be a good idea. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

History content

Lead text:

Amphetamine, the first psychoactive prescription drug, is one member of a family of molecules derived from ephedrine. In 1885, the Japanese organic chemist, Nagai Nagayoshi isolated ephedrine from the Ephedra sinica plant and then developed a method for ephedrine synthesis. (Ephedra spp., known as má huáng (麻黄), had been used as a stimulant and anti-asthmatic since the Han dynasty.) In 1887, the Romanian chemist Lazar Edeleanu, beginning with ephedrine, discovered a method for synthesizing amphetamine. The pharmacological properties of amphetamine went unrecognized until 1929, when the American chemist, Gordon Alles, had himself injected with 50 mg of amphetamine, noting that it caused his heart rate and blood pressure to increase, and that it also had psychostimulant properties.[36]

@Sbelknap: The text I've colored in red isn't really correct – I'm assuming you're confusing amphetamine with methamphetamine here since meth was first synthesized from ephedrine by Nagai Nagayoshi. I'm not sure what Edeleanu used as a reactant, but it couldn't have been ephedrine since the reduction of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine yields methamphetamine ([4]). Synthesizing amphetamine via the analogous method involves the reduction of norephedrine/norpseudoephedrine ([5]). I can't read German, but in the event you can, this is the paper Edeleanu published in 1887 on the synthesis of amphetamine. I'm sure it's mentioned in there somewhere.

As for the text in green, these statements are relevant to and suitable for the lead of History and culture of substituted amphetamines since the body of that article already mentions the isolation of ephedrine by Nagai (NB: per MOS:INTRO, every statement in the lead should be a summary of content from the body of an article; so, if a statement in the lead isn't repeated in the body of an article, it needs to be added to the body or removed from the lead). Consequently, I've added these sentences to that article's lead.

As for the underlined clauses, including this material in the amphetamine article is fine with me; however, these assertions need to be added with a supporting reference since featured articles are required to be fully compliant with the WP:Verifiability policy. Unfortunately, I don't remember if either assertion was mentioned in any of the references that currently cite this article, so I'll need to look for references which cover them unless you already have refs on hand. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just add the 2 sentences on the synthesis and resynthesis by Edeleanu and Alles in this article's body to the lead. These are the sentences from the body of the article's current revision:

Amphetamine was first synthesized in 1887 in Germany by Romanian chemist Lazăr Edeleanu who named it phenylisopropylamine; its stimulant effects remained unknown until 1927, when it was independently resynthesized by Gordon Alles and reported to have sympathomimetic properties.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This would be an excellent summary if this were a chemistry article. However, it is a pharmacology article. There are several senses in which a drug is discovered:

1. The chemical structure of the drug is identified.

2. A method of drug production is discovered, such as a means of extracting pure drug from a natural source, or a chemical synthesis from simple feedstocks, or a means of synthesizing from a purified extract obtained from a natural source.

3. A potential druggable target is identified, perhaps by observation of a physiologic process (e.g., running fast makes your heart beat faster), or administration of some natural product (brewing and consuming "Mormon tea" made from the dried leaves of Ephedra nevadensis.

4. A pharmacologic effect is identfied that results from administration of a more or less pure "defined formulation" containing one or more molecules in some largely inert vehicle.

Each of these aspects of drug discovery/invention is important. In the lede for a drug article, I would think that sense 4 would be preeminent. However, as pharmacology relies on insights cleaned from biology, chemistry, and physiology, it would be OK (and maybe preferable) to include sense 1, 2, 3 in the lede as well. Sbelknap (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. #2 would require a much more technical explanation than anything currently covered in the lead since it'd require explaining what the Leuckart reaction is and the synthesis of amphetamine via that method. That's the most common production method for both licit and illicit amphetamine synthesis.

Anyway, I noticed one of the references that's cited in the article (PMID 16492800) mentions that Alles tested it on himself and observed CNS/cardiovascular effects, but it doesn't mention the dose or the route of administration he used: So, in early June 1929, Alles tested this chemical, which I will from now on call “amphetamine” for simplicity (though it would not receive this name officially for almost ten years), on himself. He noted a “feeling of well being,” “palpitation,” and eventually a “sleepless night” in which his “mind seemed to race from one subject to another.” Two days later the chemical was given to the first of several of Dr. Piness’s patients undergoing an asthma attack. It proved a mediocre asthma remedy, but these patients also experienced “exhilaration” and “palpitation”—that is, central nervous system and cardiac effects. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If you were going to add just one more sense of "discovered" in the lede, I would suggest adding the pharmacologic sense of "discovered":

The pharmacological properties of amphetamine went unrecognized until 1929, when the American chemist, Gordon Alles, had himself injected with 50 mg of amphetamine, noting that it caused his heart rate and blood pressure to increase, and that it also had psychostimulant properties. Sbelknap (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the citation for the 50 mg dose of amphetamine that Alles administered to himself (and others). Sbelknap (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's more on the Alles experiment, from the journal "Chemical Heritage": https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/fast-times-the-life-death-and-rebirth-of-amphetamine

Sbelknap (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think it's noteworthy enough to add to the article, so I intend to do this, but ideally I'd like to cite a recent peer-reviewed academic review article. If I can't find one that mentions it in the next few days, I'll just add it with a citation to [6] and the two older references you linked.  Pending Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Section reflist

References

Behavior

I’m reverting this edit since these statements aren’t particularly noteworthy even in the context of ADHD individuals.

Amphetamine does indeed cause certain individuals to elicit aggressive, assaultive, suicidal, etc. behaviors more frequently than they would if they did not use the drug; however - and I can’t emphasize this enough - these are context-specific and reward-dependent drug effects. Even at near lethal doses, this drug does not make people angry; it does, however, amplify the value of salient rewards. In rather oversimplified terms, anger and reward together lead to assaultiveness, where reward simply functions as a “go” signal for that “goal” (i.e., physically assaulting a specific individual). In individuals with assaultive or suicidal tendencies, amphetamine can - but not necessarily will - cause them to act out on those tendencies more often. This is just a specific example of how amphetamine amplifies motivational salience for salient and goal-related rewards, thereby influencing the corresponding goal-oriented behavior.

In any event, if a stimulant actually did consistently increase the prevalence of hostile behaviors in the general population, it seems absurd that such an obvious and readily perceivable drug effect could be overlooked after 80 years of use (or even 1 clinical trial). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Usage

We have this paragraph in the lead

"Amphetamine belongs to the phenethylamine class. It is also the parent compound of its own structural class, the substituted amphetamines,[note 4] which includes prominent substances such as bupropion, cathinone, MDMA, and methamphetamine. As a member of the phenethylamine class, amphetamine is also chemically related to the naturally occurring trace amine neuromodulators, specifically phenethylamine and N-methylphenethylamine, both of which are produced within the human body. Phenethylamine is the parent compound of amphetamine, while N-methylphenethylamine is a positional isomer of amphetamine that differs only in the placement of the methyl group."

And this is described as trivia?

"In 2016 it was the 292nd most prescribed medication in the United States with more than a million prescriptions?"

That it is one of the most commonly used medications in more interesting to the general public than that it is a "phenethylamine" which is stated 4 times. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO this whole paragraph should be moved to the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That paragraph was there when this article became an FA. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay and? You do not see any issues with it User:Seppi333?

Whether or not it is high, mid, or low potency is also not very important and does not need to be in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That paragraph summarizes 2 sections in the body of this article. The lead follows WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the foremost reason I decided to remove it is because the scope of this article encompasses all amphetamine pharmaceuticals - i.e., any mixture of the free bases or salts of levo/dextro-amphetamine as well as the prodrug lisdexamfetamine - whereas I'm assuming the statement that you added applied only to racemic amphetamine pharmaceuticals. As a group of medications, the prescribing frequency of amphetamine should have been ranked higher than Adderall, but that source reported a much lower rank. Stating that rank in the lead when the lead currently states that Adderall is a prescription amphetamine (see: "Currently, pharmaceutical amphetamine is prescribed as racemic amphetamine, Adderall,[note 3] dextroamphetamine, or the inactive prodrug lisdexamfetamine.") would be very misleading. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hum. So we do not have an article just about the medication that goes by the brandname Evekeo?[7]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Not specifically about it, no. This article's scope encompasses everything from pure dextroamphetamine, pure levoamphetamine, mixtures of the two in their free base and salt forms, and even lisdexamfetamine and its salts (hence why that drug is covered in the pharmacokinetics section). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess the question is should we? One article for amphetamine the group and one for the specific medication? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, given how recently that group of medications became approved drug products, I don’t think there’s sufficient coverage (i.e., potential distinguishing article content) to justify creating an article on that right now. What would be the benefit in creating it though? FWIW, I think the independent notability of Adderall from amphetamine is marginal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Depending on the type of content you have in mind, the best place to cover material on those drug products would probably be amphetamine#Pharmaceutical products or possibly amphetamine#Medical, but the former could definitely be expanded to cover specific indications and similar information for each drug product, like:

• Dyanavel XR, Adderall XR, Adzenys XR-ODT, Mydayis are all indicated only for ADHD
• Adderall IR and Dexedrine are indicated for ADHD and narcolepsy
• Evekeo is indicated for ADHD, narcolepsy, and exogenous obesity
• Vyvanse is indicated for ADHD and binge eating disorder

The real question is whether readers would find this useful or not. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is "potent" needed in the first sentence?

This is a poorly understood term that adds little to the first sentence. It simple makes the first sentence long and thus more complicated.

The important bit is that it is a CNS stimulant and what it is used for. The fact that it is or is not potent can go in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: No, it's not necessary. Your text removal is fine with me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Addiction under Overdose vs side effects

Given the discussion on medmos (and common sense), addiction should not under any circumstances be a subsection of overdose. Overdose could be included under side effects or be separate. Not too fussed on that. Anyway, more eyes needed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Go to the MOS:MED talk page. Scroll down to my new section. Read the WHO and MERCK references for how they’ve defined “side effects” vs “adverse effects”. Would link them directly but I’m on my phone and would take too long. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, you’ve been leaving a chunk of content on addiction behind in the OD section every time you’ve moved the sections. You need to pay attention to what you’re doing in the future, particularly if you’re restructuring a featured article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Err yes, I've been leaving the toxicity material because it is related to overdose. BTW no-one supports leaving the addiction material in overdose. So you need to fix it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about the 2nd paragraph under the “Overdose” heading.

Did you notice that I opposed that option too? It makes no sense to put addiction or dependence sections there for drugs which are not pharmaceuticals and it’s not correct to put dependence there for several drug classes. Moreover, a number of people have asserted my “definition” (I.e., the MeSH definition) is wrong; if one searches for “Accidental” “definition” “overdose”, that definition is pervasive as it applies to both accidental overdose and intentional overdose. If one searches for ”drug abuse” “definition” “overdose”, one will find a toxicological definition reflecting acute adverse drug reactions. I simply didn’t care to cite any of the numerous other sources available to convince people of the fact that two definitions exist.

Lastly, the MOS:MED discussion is about a guideline which lists suggested (this is explicitly stated), not mandated, section ordering and headings. This article on the other hand, went through a full year of extensive editorial review at FAC, for which a consensus about an FA-quality revision was reached. Those sections were placed in the exact same location back then as they are now, but none of the medical editors who reviewed the article in the FACs objected to it.

With all that said, placing those in the overdose section is not nonsensical like putting them in side effects because the MeSH definition is one of 2 in common use. Based upon the earlier consensus at FAC and the fact that the adverse effects heading can’t be used in place of “side effects” here, this article need not and can not, respectively, move those sections to an “Adverse effects” section.

Even if I did feel compelled to move the sections, where exactly am I supposed to put them given the constraints? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You completely ignored me when I pointed out that you’ve been leaving an entire paragraph behind in the OD section and additionally ignored the definitional issue involving putting a section discussing binge use under a side effects heading. I’m not going to waste any more time replying to you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok then, moved toxicity out then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support putting it under side effects. Would move toxicity under overdose. But also fine under side effects aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

First time at this article, so consider it 'fresh eyes'. In my mind, dependence is the physiologic state, withdrawal is defined by dependence (e.g. cessation of the dependent drug), and addiction is the behaviour modifications that (in this case) stem from the dependence. To that end, I wouldn't change much except to move 'Dependence and withdrawal' above Addiction, and move biomolecular mechanisms under 'Dependence and withdrawal'. What's interesting with this article, is there are a lot of side effects that are not necessarily harmful, so the headings work really well. Will people intuitively know that Dependence and withdrawal is a harmful effect? Ian Furst (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed and moved dependence above addiction. Still reading the biomolecular mechanisms. I think the average layperson will well know these are problematic Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Just meant that biomolecular mechanisms should really be part of the physiologic condition (dependence), rather than the psychological one (addiction). Ian Furst (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This review covers dependence mechanisms. With exception for the involvement of CREB in the nucleus accumbens, they have nothing in common. Addiction was implicitly considered to be an aspect of the diagnosis of a "Substance dependence" in the DSM-IV, but that's not the sense of the word "dependence" that's used in this article; it uses the pharmacological sense. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Re above, I was looking for refs that equated adverse effects and side effects last night; first three that I found from searching "adverse" "side" "effect" "definition" were these:

A side effect is 'any unintended effect of a pharmaceutical product occurring at doses normally used by a patient which is related to the pharmacological properties of the drug'.

Essential elements in this definition are the pharmacological nature of the effect, that the phenomenon is unintended, and that there is no deliberate overdose.
— WHO Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal

A side effect is ‘any unintended effect of a pharmaceutical product occurring at doses normally used by a patient which is related to the pharmacological properties of the drug’.
Essential elements in this definition are the pharmacological nature of the effect, that the phenomenon is unintended, and that there is no deliberate overdose.
— WHO Safety of Medicines guide

Side effect is an imprecise term often used to refer to a drug’s unintended effects that occur within the therapeutic range.
— MERCK MANUAL Professional Version

I did not expect to find a definition that included the italicized statements, but that being the definition, "side effects" and "adverse effects" can't be used interchangeably when discussing abuse, recreational use, binge use, or overdose. I recognized a simple solution to that problem last night though and have implemented it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Copied from Special:Permalink/898262918#Overdose. Facepalm Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Pathological overactivation of the mesolimbic pathway, a dopamine pathway that connects the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens, plays a central role in amphetamine addiction.[141][127] Individuals who frequently overdose on amphetamine during recreational use have a high risk of developing an amphetamine addiction, since repeated overdoses gradually increase the level of accumbal ΔFosB, a "molecular switch" and "master control protein" for addiction.[116][101][142] Once nucleus accumbens ΔFosB is sufficiently overexpressed, it begins to increase the severity of addictive behavior (i.e., compulsive drug-seeking) with further increases in its expression.[116][117] While there are currently no effective drugs for treating amphetamine addiction, regularly engaging in sustained aerobic exercise appears to reduce the risk of developing such an addiction.[129][130] Sustained aerobic exercise on a regular basis also appears to be an effective treatment for amphetamine addiction;[sources 10] exercise therapy improves clinical treatment outcomes and may be used as a combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy, which is currently the best clinical treatment available.[129][131][128]

• Much simpler to rename whole section Adverse effects - addiction can happen quickly which makes Long-term adverse effects a problem heading, and having both side effects and adverse effects as separate sections looks silly because of the large overlap. Also, recreational usage we don't usually call "overdosage" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  Using borked diction might work for you, but not for me. Section headings need to correctly define the scope of their content and that would lead to a mismatched scope. As for the long-term section, you should've looked up the definition first. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Selective transclusions

I fixed the selective transclusions of the addiction and dependence sections in Adderall, lisdexamfetamine, and dextroamphetamine earlier today. As this was the first time any of the section headings have been modified ever since those transclusions began using the WP:LST method, it didn't occur to me for over 24 hours that those articles omitted these sections entirely. I've updated the edit notice for this page to indicate the kind of edits (changing section headers) that cause problems with selective transclusions (once again: #New edit notice for this page) to address this issue in the future. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with User:Casliber above. One "side effects" second level heading is enough. Adding a second just so you can format transclusions is not a sufficient justification. There is more or less consensus at WT:MEDMOS and having another section labeled "Long term adverse effects" is not it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I'm getting annoyed with your constant changes to the sections. First you want them out of OD and in adverse effects, which I agreed to, but now you want them in side effects despite the definition resulting in a scope mismatch between the header and the subsection text. Lumping "Addiction" under "Side effects" also isn't hierarchical, as it pertains to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 2b. Stop reverting and explain why this article has to have one less section heading.
Adding a second just so you can format transclusions is not a sufficient justification. That wasn't my justification. My justification is immediately above.
There is more or less consensus at WT:MEDMOS and having another section labeled "Long term adverse effects" is not it. "Long-term adverse effects" wasn't even an option in the RfC; the consensus was to put them in "adverse effects" per the comments following the !votes in the RfC. This issue only arose after I realized there was a definitional issue with using "side effects". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not care if you use "side effects" or "adverse effects". Simple pick one. Anyway you have hit 5 reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is ridiculous having both side effects and adverse effects. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Casliber Seppi wishes to go with "adverse effects" rather than "side effects". I have no problem with that being used. Your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I think the best option is a single adverse effects section - it is broader than side effects and avoids the issue of nitpicking that has gone on in this area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Source-to-text issues

• This sentence, "According to the USFDA, "there is no systematic evidence" that stimulants produce aggressive behavior or hostility." is problematic as it is sourced to here, where the full context is, " Although there is no systematic evidence that stimulants cause aggressive behavior or hostility, patients beginning treatment for ADHD should be monitored for the appearance of or worsening of aggressive behavior or hostility" - so chopping off the second part significantly alters the intent of the source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Also @Seppi333:,please tell me in any source where it says/means, " Although very rare, this psychosis can also occur at therapeutic doses during long-term therapy" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thirdly, most stimulant psychosis is as a result of recreational use, so warping it into, "An amphetamine overdose can lead to many different symptoms, but is rarely fatal with appropriate care..." - is problematic Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. That statement pertains to pharmacovigilance, as that is not an established adverse effect. The point of the statement is to promote postmarketing adverse event reporting for worsening aggression or hostility; the statement about systematic evidence is the current evidence base supporting that this adverse event is an adverse effect.

Cited by 3 sources in the article. Prescribing information lists 0.1% incidence - 1 in 1000. 2nd ref lists "psychosis (rare)" as side effect in table. Third ref includes the assertion in its quote.

Don't understand your third point at all. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: (and anyone else for that matter) can you see the three points I have raised above and opine? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Per "there is no systematic evidence" this just means it has not been well studied not that it does not occur. Agree needs rewording.

What is your concern with the second point?

Agree that psychosis should be moved to under adverse effects rather than overdose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Meh. I lost a lot of interest in editing Wikipedia as a result of all of this, but I'm always amenable to constructive revisions. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

FA

I have looked over and over the FAC several times, and am only seeing two supports, with numerous concerns raised. What am I missing? I am unsure why this article was promoted FA, so perhaps there is a hidden comment I am not seeing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... the best person to ask would be the coordinator that promoted the article. I haven't looked through those pages since 2015, but IIRC there were quite a bit more than 2 supports across the 5 consecutive FAC noms. Some of those noms had very little activity while a few had a lot; several editors provided input in more than one FAC, so the discussions at FAC resulted in a fair amount of content creation in a couple sections (thanks to several editors) and prose revisions throughout the article (largely thanks to AmericanLemming, who expended far more time and effort on polishing/improving the prose – especially in the technical sections where his feedback/editing significantly improved accessibility without oversimplifying/dumbing down the article text – than would be reasonably expected of a FAC reviewer; his feedback at FAC has had a lasting influence on the way I've written technical content in other articles, particularly w.r.t. when/how I use explanatory footnotes, parenthetical clarification, piped links for jargon, and glossary infoboxes). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

In the sentence "Among European Union (EU) member states in 2018, 11.9 million adults of ages 15–64 have used amphetamine or methamphetamine at least one in their lives and 1.7 million have used either in the last year." (Section History, society, and culture) change "one" to "once".

 Done Spyder212 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In the sentence "The most common route of both legal and illicit amphetamine synthesis employs a non-metal reduction known as the Leuckart reaction (method 1)." (Section Chemistry/Synthesis) change "illicit" to "illegal". 217.89.108.210 (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Why? Spyder212 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Cochrane review adults adhd

I was going to propose this text: A review of studies of amphetamines for ADHD in adults found that while amphetamines reduced severity of symptoms in the short term, due to higher risk of drop out due to adverse events, further studies are needed to assess the effects over the longer term.

But this is already covered more succinctly in the article. Is it relevant to add this finding that "[Castells et al 2018] found no differences in effectiveness between amphetamines and guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine." ?

• Reference: Castells, Xavier; Blanco-Silvente, Lídia; Cunill, Ruth (2018-08-09). "Amphetamines for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007813.pub3. ISSN1465-1858. PMC6513464. PMID30091808.
• PMID 30091808 (doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007813.pub3):

Excerpts from PMID 30091808

"These studies compared amphetamines to placebo (something that looks like an amphetamine but with no active ingredient), and three studies also compared amphetamines with other drugs such as guanfacine, modafinil, and paroxetine"... "All amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients. Lisdexamfetamine and MAS also reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians, but dexamphetamine did not. Overall, amphetamines did not make people more likely to stay in treatment and were associated with higher risk of treatment ending early as the result of adverse events. We found no evidence suggesting that higher doses worked better than lower ones. We did not find any difference in effectiveness between amphetamines that act for longer periods of time versus those that act for shorter periods of time. Therefore, it appears that short‐term treatment with amphetamines reduces the severity of ADHD symptoms, but studies assessing the effects of amphetamines for longer periods of time are needed. We found no differences in effectiveness between amphetamines and guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine."..."Studies with longer follow‐up periods are also needed to demonstrate the long‐term efficacy of amphetamines."

Notgain (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't think it's particularly relevant to this article since the use and efficacy of other drugs is tangential to this article's topic; it is relevant to the adult adhd article though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)