Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Acute myeloid leukemia -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

	Acute myeloid leukemia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 8, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
FA	This page has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale

This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

MCB portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Cholesterol. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 FAB Prognosis Suggestion 2 Horrible, horrible vandalism 3 OK... 4 Peer review 5 Question 6 Excellent!! 7 Layout 8 all wikipedia medical articles should contain an advisory notice 9 Made some edits 10 Redirect? 11 Refractory AML should be mentioned in Treatment section

FAB Prognosis Suggestion

What about adding in stats and prognosis info with the FAB type?

The below info needs to be verified befor being placed in the artical.

FAB subtype, % of adult AML patients, Prognosis compared to average for AML

M0, 5%, Worse

M1, 15%, Average

M2, 25%, Better

M3, 10%, Best

M4, 20%, Average

M4 eos, 5%, Better

M5, 10%, Average

M6, 5%, Worse

M7, 5%, Worse

Horrible, horrible vandalism

Please, PLEASE ban 195.93.21.103 from editing wiki articles.

For more examples of his blatant vandalism, look at his contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.93.21.103

IronPhoenix 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK...

... comments on the page? It's coming together. Any areas which need to be addressed, reworked, improved, etc? MastCell 19:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! More references would be nice though. Btw. for some more general feedback on articles (style, readability, etc.) you can also put them on peer review and I think this article with more references would make a nice featured article candidate. --WS 20:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I'll go ahead and list the article for peer review - I've tried to more fully reference it as well. MastCell 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add names of people (known for other things) that had a history of AML. I know one which might be notable because the person fully recovered from it after one publicly known relapse (Ken Watanabe). I'm sure it would add to the integrity of the article. I see other medical articles that name people as well so I don't see a potential problem.--Hyokano 09:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be OK in principle; my fear is that it will turn into a laundry list of people without adding much to the article (this has happened at Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where most of the recent edits involve adding "prominent NHL patients" rather than improving the text of the article). But if you want to work on compiling a list, we can give it a shot and see how it looks. MastCell 18:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

== Etymology ==

This link gives the etymolgy: [1] Rintrah 11:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent!!

Project on leukaemia, here I come!

Layout

This article somehow got through FAC and peer review without anyone pointing out that it doesn't conform to the layout at WP:MEDMOS; History really should be at the end. It also got through FAC with few PMIDs and without a correct bibliographic style on the books: I tried to add that info, but I'm not sure the ISBNs are correct, as the info I found at bn.com and amazon.com didn't seem to fit - please check the ISBNs I added. The books which are referred to more than once in footnotes should have complete entries in the References section. Sandy 05:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added complete references for both books cited in the Reference section, and am working my way through the footnotes as well. The ISBNs appear to be correct. Fvasconcellos 14:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the issue of layout did come up during peer review and the FAC process. My understanding is that the layout guidelines are suggestions. In most textbook chapters, the history of a disease is described first; hence I left it up front. However, it's not a big deal, so if you (or someone else) wanted to move the history down to the bottom, be my guest. MastCell 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a decision I want to make alone :-) I believe the WP:MEDMOS guidelines make much better sense for an encylopedia largely accessed by laypersons, with an audience different than that of a medical textbook. On a separate note, I see the References have been switched back to Further Reading, when they are actually the textbooks used as References to back up the inline citations used in Footnotes (Notes). It's not necessary to repeat the full book info for every entry in Notes. They can look like this (with the full book listed in References - Further reading should be reserved for books *not* used as references; what is there now is incorrect):

1. Abeloff, Martin et al. (2004). Clinical Oncology, 3rd. edition, St. Louis, Mo.: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone, p. 2834. ISBN 0443066299.
2. Abeloff, Martin et al. (2004), pp. 2831–32.
3. Abeloff, Martin et al. (2004), p. 2828.
4. Abeloff, Martin et al. (2004), p. 2834.

I realize these are small points, but it's hard to get subsequent featured article candidates to follow guidelines when they can point to a current FA which does not. It would be helpful if such a quality article would follow WP:MEDMOS and WP:LAYOUT, by moving History to the bottom and following the conventions of Notes, References and Further reading (a section which should not be listed in this article, as there is none currently). I'm sorry I was traveling during the FAC, or I would have raised these points then. Sandy 17:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of moving the History section down, I went ahead and made the changes above so the article would conform with Notes, References and Further reading: with the article on the main page, it would help future FACs to see the section headings conforming to guidelines. I hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers :-) Sandy 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I may have gotten a bit carried away with the references :) Fvasconcellos 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whew, glad you like it: it's so important when it's on the main page to guide future editors :-) Should the other textbooks mentioned in Notes be listed also in References, even though they are used only once? I don't know how important those books are to the overall article. Sandy 18:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. WP:MEDMOS defines "References" as "...sources used as background to a whole topic" (emphasis mine - though you've probably read this already). I don't think this applies to the other textbooks cited; as you pointed out, they're only cited once, and to support specific information provided in specific sections of the article. Fvasconcellos 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought: just checking. Sandy 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

all wikipedia medical articles should contain an advisory notice

to warn patients to seek help from a professional, like this one from netdoctor.co.uk:

The materials in this web site are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor. The web site does not have answers to all problems. Answers to specific problems may not apply to everyone. If you notice medical symptoms or feel ill, you should consult your doctor

They already do. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll see a link to our General disclaimer. The medical disclaimer is prominently mentioned on that page. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically addressed at WP:MEDMOS. Sandy 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Made some edits

I wonder whether the peer-review process included a hematologist--there are a number of omissions from the article compared with "traditional" AML articles found elsewhere.--Dr.michael.benjamin 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia "peer review" is not like medical/scientific peer review - it's a matter of other editors looking at the article, most of whom do not have specialized knowledge of the subject in question. Which areas do you think could use beefing up? MastCell 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect?

Why isn't Acute myeloblastic leukemia already a redirect to this page? Am I missing something critical here? WhatamIdoing 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Refractory AML should be mentioned in Treatment section

It ties up the earlier comment about 70-80% of patients able to achieve a remission - the reader may be wondering what happened to the other 20-30%. Also early relapse should be mentioned. And also the fact that most hospitals will not do a stem cell transplant unless the patient is in remission - possibly after a relapse. 75.83.178.154 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Refractory" AML -- refractory anything is just med-speak for "failed treatment". If the reader interprets "70-80% of patients achieve remission" as meaning "20-30% do not achieve remission", then the reader exactly understands the situation, without needing to introduce another vocabulary word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I take the point, though - the article could go into more depth on salvage treatments for patients who don't respond to initial induction, as well as the implications for prognosis. There is a clear link between time to relapse and likelihood of responding to salvage chemo, though I need to pull up refs for it. Finally, it is true that stem cell transplantation in patients who are not in remission has a low success rate and many centers will decline to perform it on that basis. Let me look into adding these things. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 28 July 2008, at 21:08.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Acute myeloid leukemia".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Acute_myeloid_leukemia

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.