Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Michela Gallagher

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Michela Gallagher

(
)
  • ... that neuroscientist Michela Gallagher identified the epilepsy drug levetiracetam as a candidate to reduce mild cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer's disease? source, MEDRS-compliant confirmation in Setti which is now cited : "Pharmaceuticals that attenuate this excess activation, such as the anti-epileptic drug levetiracetem [note this is a misspelling, em for am], can dose-dependently improve memory in aged rats (Koh, Haberman, Foti, McCown, & Gallagher, 2010) and reduce both hippocampal hyperactivity and memory impairments in patients with aMCI, as indicated by decreased BOLD activation (Bakker et al., 2012)." [Baker is also co-authored by Gallagher]. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • ALT1:... that neuroscientist Michela Gallagher found that hyperactivity in the hippocampus of rats caused them to have a worse memory? source Confirmed in McGarrity which is now cited : "Moreover, our findings support recent studies in humans and rodent models linking hippocampal overactivity and hyperexcitability to age-related memory deficits" citing (Koh, Haberman, Foti, McCown, & Gallagher, 2010; Bakker, Krauss, Albert, Speck, Jones, Stark, Yassa, Bassett, Shelton, Gallagher, 2012)

Created by Achaea (talk). Self-nominated at 21:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC).

  • Long enough, nominated in time. QPQ done. Article is not negative. Hooks are both concise and interesting. The main hook needs more wikilinks, at least to the two diseases.
  • However, I think the sourcing needs work throughout eg newsletters and ScienceDaily summaries are not considered sufficiently reliable to make claims, particularly relating to medical topics, which must be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Given the sourcing quality, there is a problem with making claims and talking about what her company is doing without promotion. Gallagher's research seems highly cited and should be treated in depth in much more reliable sources.
  • The source for the main hook does not seem to meet MEDRS requirements, which would be necessary to talk about a drug for use in humans. Alt1 is supported by a newsletter from Johns Hopkins, which is not sufficiently independent to make a claim.
  • Earwig[1] found some minor overlap with [2] and other sources, which could do with rephrasing.
  • Another problem I see is that the article is rather stub-like, and not fully wikified. It's not always easy to find year of birth and country of birth (if American, why go to UCL?) for living scientists who shun the limelight, but without those key biographical elements it feels less a biography than a career summary and company profile. You should link her Johns Hopkins home page [3], CV [4] and Google Scholar profile [5]. I did find a few tidbits from a brief web browse:
  • She served as Editor-in-Chief of Behavioral Neuroscience 1995–2001 (CV & [6]) -- the latter article has more on her research c. 2001
  • Per her CV, she's also an elected fellow of several societies, which should be included, especially if an independent source can be located.
  • She originally studied fine arts[7]
  • She was one of the first two women to graduate from Colgate University and was the first woman to get a PhD there.[8] (and above)
  • Past Chair of Johns Hopkins Department of Psychological and Brain Science & Vice Provost of Academic Affairs and Faculty for 4 yrs (as above)
Espresso Addict (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict: Thanks for the review, I'll try to address your points asap. I'm don't think WP:MEDRS is really applicable here, because it is about what science she does, rather than saying that the claims are true. I can add her own articles on the studies, but these would not count as secondary sources for the scientist, only for the topic (e.g. can use them in the mild cognitive impairment article). I'm happy to just go with the second ALT though, if you're worried about the first one. Also, all the overlap on Earwig are names of her position or of the prizes she's won, I really cannot rephrase those things, as they are just simply names.
I will have a look of adding in that information, obvious you are also welcome to. However, the article is long enough and a start article, so following the rules of DYK, that shouldn't be a reason to stop the DYK, right? Thanks! Achaea (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict: Have added in the information that I could find sources for and a few more medical sources. Achaea (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Some very nice suggestions. While they are not necessary for DYK, I have added them because it makes for a very interesting article. Thanks to the original editor for starting this :-) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As the article has been expanded to over twice its original size at the time of review, a new review is needed to see where the article stands as regards the original issues and whether there are issues with any of the new material. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I might do a full review later, but from a glance, the article's sourcing has been cleared up and it reads better. Looks like quite a nice article. Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There are still some problems. I agree with the previous reviewer, and disagree with the nominator, that MEDRS is relevant here. Yes, the article is about what Gallagher has done, but the subject of her research is of enormous interest to a very large number of people. We need to be extremely careful to distinguish what Gallagher is claiming from what is widely accepted to be correct.
    • AGF previous review on newness, length, and QPQ
    • The ScienceDaily source is still in the article. This is supporting a sentence also supported by another source. Part of that sentence makes a claim about Gallagher's area of research; that does not require a MEDRS (but it does require a BLP compliant source). Part makes a claim about the relation between the hippocampus and Alzheimer's (MEDRS needed). Part makes a claim about mild cognitive impairment (MEDRS needed). It is entirely unclear which source supports which parts.
      • moved non-MEDRS source, added MEDRS compliant source
    • The Psychiatry Newsletter source is still in the article. It supports two claims. One is a claim about Gallagher's findings; a MEDRS is required agreeing that that is what she found (there is a difference between what Gallagher found, and what she claims she found). The second is a straight medical claim.
      • added MEDRS compliant source
    • Both hooks are cited to non-MEDRS. If there are MEDRS discussing Gallagher's research, these should be used instead. If she is currently out on a limb by herself, then sorry, we shouldn't be announcing her findings on the front page. It may be safer to use a hook that is less cutting edge, such as her learning indices, but the issue still would need fixing in the article.
    • On copyvio, the only thing Earwig is throwing up is the sentence "These measures have had a significant impact in the field", which is not too serious, but no reason not to fix it. SpinningSpark 12:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
      • rephrased
  • Nominator Espresso Addict Achaea has not edited on Wikipedia since April 4, so it seems unlikely that they will be addressing the issues Spinningspark has raised. Since Mary Mark Ockerbloom has done some work on the article already, I'm pinging her to see whether she was interested in working on these issues. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset:, Thanks for tagging me again; I meant to come back to this. I have made modifications as noted above. I've added MEDRS compliant sources but also left in the non-MEDRS sources because they are often easier for non-specialists to understand. If someone prefers to remove the non-MEDRS sources, I will accept that. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Achaea, I'm very glad to read that you're recovering; I hope that recovery accelerates soon. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, thanks for taking this on and helping out. Spinningspark, are we there yet, or is there more that needs to be done? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The article seems to have been somewhat "cite bombed" since I last looked at it in response to my bullet #3 (on Psychiatry News). Are all of them really needed to sythesise the cited facts? Despite all those additions, the non-MEDRS source is still in the article. If the new sources support the claims, then it is not needed. If they don't, then there is still a problem. Both hooks now have MEDRS sources, but the qoutes provided do not support the claim that these were Gallagher's discoveries. In ALT0, for instance, the Letti source cites a paper co-authored by Gallagher (her name does not even come first in a long list of authors) but we need the source to say directly that Gallagher was responsible before that can be a DYK fact. SpinningSpark 18:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Achaea, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, this nomination has been open for well over three months, and the most recent comments are about four weeks old with nothing done to address them. We need to see progress before the end of June if this is going to remain open. Thank you for your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: Sorry for my prolonged absence. Thanks Mary Mark Ockerbloom for adding in those WP:MEDRS sources. I have looked at the cite-bombing User:Spinningspark mentioned, and have removed that non-MEDRS source. Can I proposed to rephrase the hooks as follows, and propose a non-MEDRS hook as an alternative. Again sorry for my disappearance from this discussion! Achaea (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
ALT0a: ... that neuroscientist Michela Gallagher's research group showed that the epilepsy drug levetiracetam is a candidate to reduce mild cognitive impairment in patients with Alzheimer's disease? Source: Setti "Pharmaceuticals that attenuate this excess activation, such as the anti-epileptic drug levetiracetem [note this is a misspelling, em for am], can dose-dependently improve memory in aged rats (Koh, Haberman, Foti, McCown, & Gallagher, 2010) and reduce both hippocampal hyperactivity and memory impairments in patients with aMCI, as indicated by decreased BOLD activation (Bakker et al., 2012)." Given Gallagher is last author on both these papers, I think it's fair to say that she was the PI on these projects.
ALT1a:... that neuroscientist Michela Gallagher was involved in a study showing that hyperactivity in the hippocampus of rats caused them to have a worse memory? Source: McGarrity "Moreover, our findings support recent studies in humans and rodent models linking hippocampal overactivity and hyperexcitability to age-related memory deficits" citing (Koh, Haberman, Foti, McCown, & Gallagher, 2010; Bakker, Krauss, Albert, Speck, Jones, Stark, Yassa, Bassett, Shelton, Gallagher, 2012)
ALT2:... that neuroscientist Michela Gallagher started the company AgeneBio, which focuses on research on possible treatments for patients with mild cognitive impairment? source: Scientific American which says: "Gallagher started a company, AgeneBio, that is now recruiting 830 subjects for a phase 3 clinical trial using a specially formulated low-dose version of the drug. Patients with the type of mild cognitive impairment that precedes Alzheimer’s will take the drug for a year and a half to “crank down the neural activity,” said Gallagher".
  • listing at WT:DYK for review of new hooks. (This is not a subject I am interested in reviewing myself) Flibirigit (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Alt1a is interesting and cited. --evrik (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It's really time to move on. ALT0a is interesting, hook refs verified and cited inline. Rest of review above. ALT0a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Michela_Gallagher&oldid=966277548"