Talk:Type 3 diabetes

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 5 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Simssl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 July 2019 and 3 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cryptogirl757. Peer reviewers: DrCupino.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Review

I've found an extremely comprehensive review of the literature here , with 130 citations :

The link is also apparent from another wiki page on memantine : "Memantine is used to treat moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease. It acts on the glutamatergic system by blocking NMDA receptors. It was first synthesized by Eli Lilly and Company in 1968 as a potential agent to treat diabetes; the NMDA activity was discovered in the 1980s."

Darwinerasmus (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Peer Review for Type 3 Diabetes (28 July 2019)

The redirect for "Not to be confused with" at the beginning is excellent. The lead starts out clearly. Saying that this diagnosis is not embraced by the the medical community is important, though a reference supporting this would give it more weight. Are Neurofibrillary tangles made up of hyperphorphorylated tau proteins or are they separate? The "and" makes it seem like they are distinct from one another. If possible, it might be helpful to add more Wikipedia links for terms like "neurofibrillary tangles" and "hypephosphorylated tau" so that information can be accessed more quickly.

It could be helpful to add a brief bit on what GSK-3beta does in the brain. The Ramesk reference you cited mentions that GSK-3beta directly binds Tau protein to microtubles, so it may be possible to expand the sentence "Glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK-3β) plays a key role in the formation of the neurofibrillary tangles." into 2-3 sentences showing how they interact.

Overall, this is a great start to an entry on a topic that is just beginning to be discussed but is not commonly known in medicine.

Thank you so much for the feed back! I love the idea of adding the links to tau proteins and neurofibrillary tangles I am going to implement that immediately. Cryptogirl757 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Project Medicine: Article Under Review My Medical School

Dear Editors,

This article is currently under review with further edits to be made by Doctor of Medicine students from the University of Notre Dame as part of the Wikipedia Project Medicine in an effort to improve the page quality and content. Edits shall be complete within the next fortnight. We kindly ask for your patience during this process.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missfirefly (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Some of the phrasing in this article was quite odd which normally indicates the content is copied and words changed using thesaurus, and so is the content. "Melatonin is discharged" = PMC5539639 paragraph 2, some words changed. The entire treatment section is paraphrasing of this article PMC5501038, which is an opinion piece, not indicative of the content.

The sources do not line up with the text.

I note that this is part of an educational assignment so I am pinging the instructors and student.

User:MimiGregg Carrolquadrio User:Zmrob25

Additionally it would be great if the referencing section can be fixed, mistakenly the University's proxy links rather than dois or PMIDs have been linked, this is hard to fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PainProf (talk • contribs) 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Now, there are no more usyd links and the "Melatonin is discharged" part is only two sentences, so I'll remove the tag. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

POV fork

Seems from the sources T3D is just another name for Alzheimer's disease, albeit with a different proposed cause. That being the case, shouldn't this article be blanked and redirected to Alzheimer's disease, where a few sentences can outline what T3D is proposed to be? Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion 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.

---

.

Agreed. I'd like to propose that this article be merged with the main Alzheimer's disease article. ChiaLynn (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support it's a POV-fork. Also, statements in the abstract of a recent review of the topic make no sense to me: "Similarly, AD patients are not routinely evaluated for high levels of insulin or for T2DM." This makes me wary of the subject altogether. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support no need to have this standalone. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose; there is enough written about this dubious theory to warrant separate discussion, and such dubious content would unbalance the Alzheimer's disease page. So, being generous, WP:TOOSOON; wait until the concept of Type 3 diabetes has more support. Klbrain (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: enough standalone content on the connection between Alzheimer's and diabetes. A link in the Alzheimer's article would be nice though. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion is almost half a year old and has not had a lot of engagement. It seems the target Alzheimer's disease article was never tagged. That article has more watchers and gets more views than this one, so I'll add the tags there. Then, hopefully this discussion can be closed reasonably soon. Mgp28 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, Klbrain and Aaron Liu have already said everything I would add. There's enough for an article, but we don't yet know enough about the Type 3 newly forming defintion to assign weight to the broader article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. ~ HAL333 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm late to this discussion, but "type 3 diabetes" has enough appearances in media to make a separate article useful, and I worry about undue weight in the AD article if there were to be a merge. However, the T3D article needs some major trimming down, and we need to make it clearer that T3D is a hypothesis about the mechanism of AD, not a separate disease or a specific type of AD. I will get to work on cleanup. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2023 (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.

Recognisig Multiple Schools of thought on the cause & treatment for Type 3 Diabetes Mellitus. Some schools believe that like Type 2 it is curable!

When the block comes up for renewal. It's important that the information doesn't just show one school of thought on the causes and treatment of Type 3 Diabetes Mellutis.

As has been shown in Type 2 diabetes, dietary change can lead to a post Diebetic state, similar to pre-diabetes. In a similar manner to the way: that stopping smoking over times substantially reduces long term harm. Equally dietary change has see substantial changes to a wide range of autoimmune disorders.

Obviously I come from one of those schools of thought, thus I am not objective.

One of our key objections is that: like in most areas of science production; One paradigm of belief holds away and blocks the publication of alternative ideas. Often labelling them in a medical context as 'Quackery'. And withdrawing any research funding be it government or industry sponsored. Leaving only small studies that can be dismissed.

Our school also points to the use of very poor methodology and the refusal to publish both their own research and others that contradicts the expected findings.

This is especially true, in an area which is both potentially a death sentance if alternative viewpoints are censored.

And is the basis of a multi-billion or trillion dollar industries such as the food, agricultural, chemicals & pharmaceuticals complex. That closely models the tobacco agricultural, chemicals & pharmaceuticals complex or the military/industrial complex.

The idea of evidence based medicine whilist laudable is a misleading & laughable idea. If the only research that is allowed, is data supplied by comercial parties that benefit from the outcome. And from governmental research where the criteria for funding, is the number of citations in publications that support the dominant paradigm.

For example in Nature.com a Scientist who treated her own breast cancer with viruses, but has found great difficulty in getting her papers published.

AuthentiKate (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea of evidence based medicine whilist laudable is a misleading & laughable idea you are entitled to whatever dumb ideas you want, but trying to edit Wikipedia to promote them will get you swiftly removed from the Project. Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as published in the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)