This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Lipoic acid is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to
dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
My edit, in which I added a mention of alpha-lipoic acid causing
insulin autoimmune syndrome,
was rolled back due to the use of a "doubtful" journal. Would then
this reference pass the mark? This is a 2010 review published in Diabetology International, the official journal of the Japan Diabetes Society. --
CopperKettle (
talk) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Why shouldn't it be mentioned? The syndrome is rare, it may take decades before anybody runs any kind of study to support cause-and-effect. It is mentioned in endocrinology textbooks and in reviews, that's a fine enough reason to mention it in an encyclopedia to me. --
CopperKettle (
talk) 22:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
The association is also mentioned in the Oxford Textbook of Endocrinology and Diabetes 3e (2022). --
CopperKettle (
talk) 22:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Also mentioned in Williams Textbook of Endocrinology (2019) --
CopperKettle (
talk) 22:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Mention of a possible association and unproven theory is unencyclopedic. For medical content, we use
WP:MEDASSESS - those sources would be in the orange section of the levels of evidence.
Zefr (
talk) 23:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If you read into it, you will clearly see that it's not "association", and it does bring on the condition. I used the term "association" just once, by myself, to couch it in a less definite light. There's no need concentrate so hard on the word I've used once. --
CopperKettle (
talk) 04:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It's mentioned in textbooks, which are good secondary sources, thus I see no reason to avoid mentioning it. --
CopperKettle (
talk) 04:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Let me quote from the MEDASSESS page you've provided the link to: "A tertiary source summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate or graduate level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources." --
CopperKettle (
talk) 04:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Another quote: "Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources." --
CopperKettle (
talk) 04:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)reply