Talk:Jeff Wrana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 BorgQueen (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jeff Wrana, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Really interesting submission! Almost everything looks alright, from the article's length and age, to the sources you used, to the QPQ requirement. ALT1 definitely looks like the "hookiest" hook, if it makes sense, but I fear there's a problem with it: the second half contains an an unclear statement... See, saying "breast-cancer free" might lead some people (including myself) to think that Wrana and Taylor's tool could help predict if a woman can completely avoid contracting the disease. Unfortunately, that's not exactly what's reported in the source you linked, which states: "Canadian researchers have developed a technology that analyzes breast cancer tumours in a new way, allowing them to predict with more than 80 per cent accuracy a patient's chance of recovering. The goal of the computerized tool is to eventually help doctors better target treatment to an individual patient, based on their tumour's profile." So, I think that technique is mainly about cancer treatment and survival, rather than cancer immunity... If confirmed, both the hook and the quote from the article should get edited accordingly: however, let me know if I missed something important! Oltrepier (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: More specifically, I would suggest these kinds of hook:
ALT1b: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to survive breast cancer?
ALT1c: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a tool that could help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to recover from breast cancer?
By the way, cancer biology is one of the subjects I'm currently studying at uni, so I'm not just doing a review, but you're also allowing me to have a review... : D Oltrepier (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: how's this going? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Oltrepier and Theleekycauldron:. I am so sorry, I am just seeing this review for the first time. My fault for not checking it. I am completely fine with any of Oltrepier's proposed hooks. Let me tweak the sentence in the article. Also, Oltrepier, that is so cool that you're studying cancer biology. I am in absolutely no way studying anything STEM related in uni right now so I was relying heavily on my own translations/understandings. Thank you for clarifying my error. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: No worries at all! And that's fine: I'm not mother-tongue in English, either, so I definitely understand there can be some issues with the translation and the interpretation of documents... But anyway, this is not a big deal. : ) Oltrepier (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oltrepier and Theleekycauldron: is this g2g? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Yes, absolutely! I just can't promote my own hooks by myself... : D Oltrepier (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewer needed to check ALT1b and ALT1c to see whether they can be approved. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Oltrepier: It looks like ALT1b and ALT1c make claims that require secondary sourcing in line with WP:MEDRS – I don't think that The Toronto Star is gonna cover it, but we're looking :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oltrepier: As a reminder, ALT0 doesn't carry any MEDRS implications, if you'd like to approve it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do think that ALT0 still is a biomedical statement. More generally, popular media or PR pieces from the researcher's institution (such as this one aren't really that reliable for priority-type statements about being the first to discover something. I'd like to see a citation from a medical source; it doesn't have to be peer reviewed but should be from a technical medicine-oriented publication or organization, more like this one. Or you can stick to a general statement about what kind of research he does. Also, male breast cancer is a thing, so the hooks should be rewritten to be gender-neutral. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • i'd personally say it's bio, not biomed, but i think you're right otherwise – i'd also want to see some kind of medrs-reliable secondary source that confirms. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): You're right, I should have addressed the need for more adequate sources, too... Luckily, though, I think I've found the original paper by Wrana and the rest of his team: here's the PubMed address, while this is the DOI link (which, unfortunately, is behind pay-wall). The journal that published the paper, Nature Biotechnology, is cited as a source both by the original Toronto Star link and a CBC article I've found by myself, and the respective dates match with one another, as well.
I also wanted to clarify that, as reported by both the aforementioned articles, the study only involved female patients. For example, the CBC wrote that "In this week's online issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology, Wrana and his colleagues say the system enables them to accurately predict in 82 per cent of more than 350 women studied whether the breast cancer would be fatal." I hope this will help solve the sourcing problem, but let me know if I missed anything else! Oltrepier (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MEDRS, primary sources generally shouldn't be used for medical content – we'll need some kind of secondary MEDRS-compliant source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Do citations in other papers count towards the criteria? I was thinking about looking for those here. Oltrepier (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oltrepier: Yes, it's good to find a review that discusses his work, especially if it spends a few sentences or a paragraph on it. I'm not sure if you're conversant with Wikidata, but I recently made a query that will find all the papers that cite any paper by a specified author (in this case Wrana), and sorts them so that reviews are likely to be towards the top of the list. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): That's just amazing, thank you for the help! I found one good review via your tool, which you can find here on PubMed, or here for the full text (you actually have to look for "Taylor" as a reference, because that's the first name on the original author list). I've also made my own research through PubMed, and found at least two recent papers that cite and discuss the work: here's the first, while here comes the second. I hope they can all be useful! Maybe, should we add them to Wrana's own Wiki article, as well, in order to further justify the sentence? Oltrepier (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Oltrepier: Yes, please use those sources in the article wherever appropriate. It looks like the mentions are scattered sentences rather than a pargraph specifically discussing his work, but they still strengthen the article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) and Theleekycauldron: Right, I've just tried to integrate all of the aforementioned sources in the original article: let me know if it's good enough. I must address that, actually, the whole page might need more secondary sources, but at least we should have got this specific part covered now. Anyway, thank you so much for your kind help! (Also, if we're going to use the hooks I've proposed by myself, can someone else approve them for me, please?) Oltrepier (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Oltrepier: Good! Okay, let's get back to the hooks. Do you have a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for the previously proposed hooks? Or do you want to propose a new one? John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): Of all the sources I've found and integrated in the article, I think the one that currently serves as citation #15 is the most appropriate for these hooks, mainly because of a specific quote: "Taylor et al. (2009) [the paper describing Wrana's work] showed that altered modularity of hubs had a prognostic value in breast cancer and suggested cancer-specific inter-modular hubs as drug targets in cancer therapies." Would it be OK? Oltrepier (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Oltrepier: Good quote; you may need to tweak the hook a bit since it doesn't seem to be a "tool" in the sense of something ready to use in a practical situation. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): Agree. I'll let @HickoryOughtShirt?4: make these last changes, though: I've stolen way too much of the show from him... : D Oltrepier (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): ALT1d: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a way to help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to recover from breast cancer? Really appreciate all of your help with this Oltrepier. If I could give you like half a DYK credit I would . Ps. I am a woman so please use she/her not him. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Whoops, sorry... Thanks for clarifying it. And that's very nice from you, but you're the original nominator, anyway, so no worries. : )
Still, I wanted to leave two last suggestions for the hook: judging from the aforementioned sources, I think "biological model" should actually be the right definition to describe Dynemo. Also, you could replace "helped develop" with "contributed to the development of", just in order to avoid repetition. Oltrepier (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oltrepier: So it would look like this? ALT1e: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana contributed to the development of a biological model to help physicians predict whether a woman is more likely to recover from breast cancer? Really appreciate all of your help with this Oltrepier. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HickoryOughtShirt?4 You're welcome! And that's good. If we wanted to make it even more... "hookier", maybe something like this would be fine:
ALT1f: ... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a biological model that can play a role in predicting whether a woman is more likely to recover from breast cancer?
[Yes, I realized just now that the original structure you used actually sounds better: sorry for my mistake...]
I need somebody else to double-check this, please. Anyway, I think we're finally getting this over the line. Oltrepier (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4 and Oltrepier: We're getting close. In ALT1f I'd suggest replacing "can" with "might", since this doesn't look like it's actually been deployed in the field. The abstract of Taylor et al. 2009 words it as "altered modularity of the human interactome may be useful as an indicator of breast cancer prognosis". John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): Understood, thank you. @HickoryOughtShirt?4: I'll let you make this final change. : ) Oltrepier (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) ALT1g... that in 2009, Jeff Wrana helped develop a biological model that might play a role in predicting whether a woman is more likely to recover from breast cancer? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HickoryOughtShirt?4: Great, we're finally ready! Thank you all for your advice, I'll definitely keep it in mind for my future reviews. : D Oltrepier (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Lead(?)[edit]

Hi HickoryOughtShirt?4, thanks for this article. I think the second sentences of the lead are a little jargon-y -- imo it's hard to read through He is the CIBC Breast Cancer Research Scientist and Mary Janigan Research Chair in Molecular Cancer Therapeutic at Mount Sinai Hospital and University of Toronto (U of T). As a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Medical Genetics and Microbiology at U of T without knowing what CIBC means, the significance of the long name of his role, what a 'Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Medical Genetics and Microbiology' is. It might be helpful to replace some of it with simpler explanations of what the roles/his work are. Let me know your thoughts, it's entirely up to you. My brain could just not be working, it's been a long weekend. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891 I agree, that's something I didn't acknowledge in my original DYK review...
Luckily, I think it should be easy to simplify those sentences. Oltrepier (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeff_Wrana&oldid=1203742487"