Talk:Interstitium

Not a newly discovered structure in 2018

The interstitium of individual organs has been discussed as a fluid space or extracellular compartment since the 1950s-70s, with numerous reviews included among these abstracts and titles. The 2018 report here is not a "discovery" of a new organ, but discusses a microscopic subcompartment that is part of the general interstitium. The news reports reflect public ignorance of what physiologists and medical students have known for > 50 years. Reverting the current article description as misleading per WP:BRD and WP:RECENTISM --Zefr (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

ok, I revised that section. please note, from the article that you quoted:

In sum, we describe the anatomy and histology of a previously unrecognized, though widespread, macroscopic, fluid-filled space within and between tissues, a novel expansion and specification of the concept of the human interstitium.

--Sm8900 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Any discussion of the interstitium not being a newly discovered structure should certainly mention acupuncture, and of fascia's role in massage. (by IP user 190.212.195.87)

Moving the added content below back to Talk, as the issue is WP:RECENTISM which states this is a "phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others: a) Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. b) Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. c) The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus."

The proposed addition is already covered in the section, Research. The source here is primary research, so diverts from WP:MEDMOS, "not a medical primary resource" and the proposed subhead, "Discovery and debate..." violates MEDMOS as conjectural, unestablished findings per WP:NOTNEWS -- see the Discussion by Benias et al. who interpret their own findings as a "proposal" with "possible" "implications", "may serve", "may explain", etc. This is primary, speculative research only, i.e., not encyclopedic. --Zefr (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed from the article until WP:CON merits it to be included in the article.

:In 2018, new research claimed to have found evidence that the interstitium was a previously-undiscovered organ, and that it had not been previously recognised due to sample-preparation techniques which are now known to collapse the structure of the interstitium.

However, while these claims did receive much attention from the scientific community, some scientists expressed doubt about the accuracy of these claims, while still acknowledging the claims as significant. In the words of one scientist at University of Texas:

"It is fair to say that histologists [and] pathologists have long known that there is an interstitial space and that it contains fluid. The claim that it is a hitherto undiscovered organ, and the largest one ever at that, seems a stretch.”

Similarly, a scientist from Yale School of Medicine said:

"I would think of this as a new component that is common among a variety of organs, rather than a new organ in and of itself. It would be analogous to discovering blood vessels for the first time, in that they are in every organ but they aren't an organ themselves."

The interstitium was identified using confocal laser endomicroscopy and fluroscein injection of bile duct tissue.[1] A microscopic subcompartment of the interstitial space, having a depth of 60–70 micrometres (0.0024–0.0028 in) and filled with lymph, was reported as draining into lymph nodes, and was structurally supported by a network of collagen.[2]

References

WP:CON already justifies this to be included, since dozens of sources do call this a new finding. I have reflected the debate on this, as per comments here. I will wait a while to allow others to comment. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:CON is not an external source policy, but rather emphasizes consensus among Wikipedia editors, which has not been established yet for this discussion, so the existing definition stands. Note that none of the "dozens of sources" you mention (sources inside the reference box) is an authoritative anatomical or medical source, leading to my assessment that this is a case of non-expert news media blowing a preliminary medical research finding out of proportion. Further, since the interstitium is a topic for Wikiproject Medicine, WP:MEDASSESS stresses the need for a systematic review to put the finding of a submucosal space into a new perspective, if it will change at all. --Zefr (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I came to this article looking for mention of its discovery and historical development of research. Shouldn’t all of the above be in the actual article? It seems odd that I had to comb through the talk page to find it. Morganfitzp (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Morganfitzp I agree. Certainly it can be formulated to express the uncertainty, but still communicate the development. Curran919 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The interstitium as a distinct organ hypothesis

'Deleted' at 17:32, 26 April 2018‎ by Zefr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,830 bytes) (-908)‎ . . (→‎Research: theory, conjecture; not a WP:MEDRS source). On investigation I could not find peer-reviewed publication either, however this has been newsworthy in early 2018, so, for the (non orthodox medical) record here is the offending sub-paragraph (but with relevant emphasis added):

Dr. Neil Theise, a professor of pathology working with the departments of pathology and of medicine at the Beth Israel Medical Center of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in New York 'proposes the interstitum be considered an organ in its own right'.

This [hypothesis] is based on the 'rejection of the conventional cell-based medical model' in favour of a mathematical principle of self-organizing complexity. He cites several ancient medical concepts in support of this perspective.

'Note:' While orthodoxy does provide stability, new ideas are appropriate to human evolution and so also Wikipedia (if it is to be of any use to future generations). After all, it took orthodox medicine two millennial to accept that Bloodletting was a bad idea.

So maybe WP:MEDRS source should not rigorously eliminate controversial ideas from decent (if not actually peer reviewed) sources, as it appears to do now? Timpo (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

• The question is - is the hypothesis discussed in decent secondary sources. If not, Wikipedia won't blaze the trail. Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Problem with definition

Not all interstitiums fit the definition in the introduction. For instance, the interstitium of the testis is not a "fluid-filled space existing between the skin and the body organs." Skingski (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter, on 19 July (this comment above), I agreed with Skingski whose question directed us to think there are two or three levels of interstitial space: 1) between the skin and body organs, 2) within an individual organ, and 3) between the cell wall and intracellular organelles. As indicated in the original (18 July) and current introductory lede sentence here, #1 is traditionally viewed as the interstitium, but this review (section II, structure and biophysical properties) expands the structure to within cells, within a structure like the testis (PMID 27300177), and within tumors. Simply, the whole-body subdermal compartment is an interstitium, and so are there intraorgan (or intratumor) and intracellular compartments. That is why this edit was made. --Zefr (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Zefr. In hindsight I see that I misread your edit, and have self-reverted.

I'm not sure the current lede is quite right, though. The first two sentences make it sound like the interstitium is specifically the fluid-filled space, whereas the references and rest of the lede make it clear that it includes both the fluid and the solid extracellular matrix. Also, "cell wall" is not a good term to use in human anatomy, as it normally describes a structure outside of cell membranes that animals don't possess; did you mean "capillary wall"?

I couldn't see where you got definition (3) from the cited review. I'm pretty sure "interstitium" is not used for intracellular structures. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter -- thanks for your comments above and the good lede editing today. By my understanding, the lede reads accurately now to represent the extracellular space and the two compartments – #s 1 and 2 above – described in the Wiig review. I interpreted the Wiig review discussion of tumor intracellular enzymes, part D., as considering a third compartment as a factor in the interstitial space, but agree this concept is preliminary and potentially overinterpreted as part of a tumor interstitium. I used the term cell wall because it is a WP article. Overall, the interstitium is a relatively understudied topic, leaving the article in the start-class category. --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3303 Adv. Writing for the Environmental Professions

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 17 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EnvrSci (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by EnvrSci (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

History Section

In response to Morganfitzp (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) and Curran919 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC) following WP:GF and WP:BOLD, I added the History section to address the Theise discovery in 2018 now that it has been six years since publication while still conveying uncertainty surrounding the findings. Hoping this is a start to moving this topic out of the talk page, and open to feedback & changes. EnvrSci (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with your apparent conclusion that the Theise primary research is either significant (it is preliminary research only, remaining unconfirmed) or is history. See first discussion topic above - this was sufficiently discussed in 2018. When a review writes about it in a quality journal or textbook, we can reconsider the issue.

Curious - how does this topic in histology pertain to your coursework in writing for the environmental professions? Zefr (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)