Talk:Hypertrichosis

Merge proposal

I believe the stub Hypertrichosis lanuginosa should be merged or redirected to this page. -Jacob 216.165.123.163 18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected it as the two pages it linked to both came back to here. Smartse (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

this page needs better sources

Seriously im doing a project on hypertrichosis and I need sources other than wikipedia and i tried to get them from here and you have to pay for them. I am not paying 30 dollars for a piece of information. PLEASE get new sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.211.32 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

heavier or more hairs?

I removed a sentence implying that because of the preceding distinction between androgenic and vellus hair "people with hypertrichosis have heavier hairs rather than more hairs." There were two problems with the sentence. First, despite the initial word implying connection to the preceding sentences in the paragraph, it did not arise or was not established as true by them. Thus the connection should not have been implied. Second, I am doubtful that the statement is even independently true. I think some people with hypertrichosis do indeed have more hairs than average. I may be wrong and would defer to a cited scientific study that establishes the truth or the bounds of the claim, but for now I have removed it "without prejudice" to reintroduction as the lawyers say. Evidence please. alteripse 00:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Occurence Rate

It would be impossible for this condition to be found in 1 out of 10 billion people. There are only 6.5 billion people on Earth. If that was true, the condition would not yet have occurred. Thus, the 1 in 250 million occurrence rate must be true.BrainDark 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This Article [1] says that there are 19 currently living today (including 17 LIVING members of the Aceves family). Assuming that this Supatra Sasuphan [2] is included in that number of 19, and that todays current world clock is reporting a population of 6,543,922,352. Then the rate based on currently living people would be 1 in 344,416,965, or about 1 in 340 million. Does anyone know who the other two living members of this group are?--65.27.233.122 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That number probably refers to congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa, of which only about 50 cases reported worldwide since the Middle Ages (there have been more than 6 billion people living on this earth). --WS 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the number of total population ever as 100 billion, which would still cause problems with a 1 in 10 billion average. Aristoi 01:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Onset

Is this disease noticed at birth or later on (like with puberty)? Need to know for a book I'm writing. Thnx in advance. Scott Free 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

IGIA

A few years ago, I saw an IGIA infomercial of these electronic tweezer-like devices that would be used to remove hair for the last time ever. Once used on a follicle, the follicle deactivates for the last time, once-and-for-all. Don't many with this excessive hair condition use IGIA? I would get my hands on an IGIA at the first opportunity if this happened to me. --70.179.170.133 03:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Merged

Merged undeveloped sub-articles. All are stubs and are not being actively worked on. This article - Hypertrichosis - is being adopted and hopefully will be brought up to FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Does having one random really long hair come under this? If so I have a picture of a 10cm leg hair which can be included. Smartse (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Include! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, it isn't a great photo, I think I have a better one somewhere, I'll look for it once I'm home in a few days. Smartse (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Google book source

Someone might find these useful - [3], [4], [5]. Cheers. Remember (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

For more detailed medical details google scholar tends to come up with things. Abstracts often contain the general gist of a paper but if you need a full copy I might be able to email you a copy. I'll try and add some stuff myself but might not have enough time... Smartse (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the sources, they will surely be useful in our research of this topic. – Vance Miller 00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (AP Biology Project 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancemiller (talk • contribs)

• I'll second that: if you need any journal articles, I may be able to access them as well. Strombollii (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be greatly appreciated, if you could! KatieW1992 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the six B-Class criteria, the article is likely to fall short principally on "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." So attention will need to be focussed on Epidemiology, History, and Society and culture. Do some research using http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=hypertrichosis&as_ylo=&as_vis=1 as a starting point, particularly looking for epidemiology. As you go through abstracts, you should get a feel for developments, giving an idea of what to put in History - this should really be about the first description of the condition and the subsequent milestones in the understanding of it; the notable people probably belong more in the Society and culture section; get some quality refs on how people have viewed sufferers from this condition to expand S & c. Hope this helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible references

Potential References List
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Our group is creating a list of at least thirty references. We will cite and format them appropriately ASAP. Vancemiller (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC) To be consistent, we should use this: "<ref name="pmid####">{{Cite pmid|####}}</ref>" to site sources from PubMed, replacing #### with the PubMed article ID number. If there is a more appropriate format for this then let us know so something can be changed. Hypertrichosis lanuginosa congenita Minoxidil-induced hypertrichosis: treatment with calcium thioglycolate depilatory A new form of hypertrichosis inherited as an X-linked dominant trait Mapping of the congenital generalized hypertrichosis locus to chromosome Xq24-q27.1 A new case of hairy elbows syndrome (Hypertrichosis cubiti) Primary Generalized and Localized Hypertrichosis in Children Diseases of the Skin A Treatise on diseases of the skin Diseases of the eye and skin The Ancestor Within Genetics 1995: Bacterium Tells All, Human Tells A Lot Hypertrichosis Hypertrichosis.com The H Syndrome Is Caused by Mutations in the Nucleoside Transporter Hypertrichosis of the Lanugo Hair in Malnutrition Hypertrichosis - Real Life Werewolves? Case of Congenital Hypertrichosis The Woman Beneath the Hair: Treating Hypertrichosis Acquired Hypertrichosis Terminals in Bronchial Carcinoma Clinical and Experimental Dermatology Causes of Hypertrichosis The hairy family of Burma: a four generation pedigree of congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa. The Sacred Family of Burma Congenital Hypertrichosis Lanuginosa: Differential Diagnoses & Workup Trichophyia and hypertrichosis: A side effect of foam sclerotherapy Doctor Doctor... FEDOR JEFTICHEIVE - Jo-Jo The Dog-Faced Boy Hypertrichosis Lanuginosa Congenita Hair removal with the long-pulse alexandrite and long-pulse Nd:YAG lasers is safe and well tolerated in children Faun tail nevus with aplasia cutis congenita. *Werewolf syndromethehumanmarvels.com > WEREWOLF SYNDROME - Hypertrichosis Retrieved on may 16, 2009 Ambras syndrome A few quick things Reference 31 won't fly at GA -- it's a blog. 24 looks to be having some formatting problems, though that isn't a problem at this stage in the game, obviously. hypertrichosis.com is interesting. If you really plan on using it, make sure to check it out in depth. The fact that there's no author listed may be a warning sign. The citation template you're using seems a bit glitchy. For instance, ref 27 is from a journal (via pubmed,obviously), but doesn't have the journal title/issue/volume listed. Be careful. Strombollii (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good References

Don't know if you've ventured into the world of PubMed ([6]), so I thought I'd drop by with a link: it's a government-run database of medical articles and has pretty much everything. Most of the articles are just abstracts; however, PubMed Central ([7]) is all free full-text articles. Good luck! Strombollii (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hypertrichosis Sandbox

We have created a sandbox to begin editing this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis/sandbox

–Vancemiller (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may pass on some advice given to me at the beginning of the project: unless you're planning on completely rewriting everything (and to an extent, even if you're planning on doing so...), make edits directly to the actual article. Doing so will attract more editors and hence, let you have your article proofed and modified piece by piece. Strombollii (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We were going to work on sections and as they are completed, or have sufficient information, copy them into the main article.

–Vancemiller (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Project Buddies, would you guys like to find a time to specifically assign different sections of the article for one another to add on to/address. This way we wouldn't be in the dark about what the other is working on, or thinking of working on, and probably save a lot of time. Just a thought. KatieW1992 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

AP team - please complete the edit summary when making changes to the article or leaving comments on the talk page - this will allow others to monitor the progress and more effectively assist where necessary! In fact, as a group project, it is essential so that your team may monitor each others contributions. See me in class if you need assistance with this task. JimmyButler (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ocurrence

Given that the current human population is 9 billion, the ocurrence paragraph is self-contradictory. The wording in the source shows awareness of this contradiction. But this source does not seem to be serious. --Ettrig (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that isn't a reliable source so I removed the whole section for the moment. Smartse (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

E, the human article says there is 6.7 billion, not 9. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned Revisions

I made quite a few adjustments to the "types" section of the article. I forgot to sign in so they do not show up as made by me. I decided to group all congenital form of hypertrichosis and all acquired forms together. Is anyone opposed to this? --TimHAllstr (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because I think there is a better way to do what you did. There should be an intro section or something similar that describes generalized, localized, congenital, and acquired forms of hypertrichosis. Each type of hypertrichosis is unique, and therefore they each should have their own section describing them. The characteristics of each may not be unique. For example a certain type, type A, may be congenital and localized, while another type, type B, may be congenital and generalized. Rather than describing what it means to be congenital in both sections, you could describe congenital in an introduction, and simply refer back to it for the specific type. –Vancemiller (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

File:Hyper1.jpg

File:Hyper5.jpg

These two pictures were put on the page without any captions. It might be useful to identify what these pictures represent so they can be placed in the appropriate section of the article.Vancemiller (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any information on their description pages which is why I didn't add captions. I just thought that as the photos are on commons they may as well be in the article. Smartse (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The picture of the legs should be deleted, it's not even Hypertrichosis it's just a guy with hairy legs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.127.34 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hypertrichosis does mean harry just in another language.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Manual of style

You might want to look at Wikipedia:MOSMED to see how the article should ideally be structured. It might give you some pointer as to what else you can research too. Smartse (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As to be expected in a medical article - there is an abundance of terms that can be wiki-linked to the appropriate articles. I added a few links as I read over the text. I also added a picture which may or may not be of value; I was bored!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dominant or Recessive

According to the text - the trait is X-linked (located on the X chromosome); however, I'm unclear as to whether the allele is dominant or recessive? The first picture is X-linked recessive (female) and the second is X-linked dominant (male)- contradicting each other?--JimmyButler (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was unsure about that too, but the article from which those two pictures came from did not have anything about recessive male traits on the X chromosome. Is that even possible? Also, if the female has a 50-50 chance of passing the trait on, the current picture of a female carrier does not support that information. –Vancemiller (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It

It is a very rare disorder, with fewer than 100 cases documented in scientific publications and by the media. It is thought that it is caused by

The gene MAP2K6 may play role but it may also be due to the change in the chromosome affecting the transcription of genes further away on the chromosome.

You probably should specify what "it" is. --Yohmom (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sufferers of this condition are usually performers at circuses because of their unnatural appearance. The term 'sufferers' sounds a bit harsh, does it not? I also think a better word could replace 'unnatural.'--Yohmom (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think sufferers may work here, because it's obvious that they're certainly not deriving benefit from their condition, but unnatural would benefit from being replaced by a term that explains the prejudice against them or how they suffer. Strombollii (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Things to work on...

Since the condition involves hair, it might be useful to include a brief discussion of lanugo, vellus and terminal hair at the beginning.

[[8]]

A peculiar rare familial form of excess generalized downy hair growth known as congenital hypertrichosis lanuginosa accounts for the individuals exploited as "dog-faced boy" or "human werewolf" at circus sideshows. Also rare, but important as a sign of internal malignancy, is acquired hypertrichosis lanuginosa. This "malignant down" usually precedes the neoplasia and has been reported with a wide variety of malignancies.

Circumscribed areas of excessive hair growth may occur following chronic irritation of the skin, by rubbing, as under plaster casts, biting (nervous tic), and following burns and ionizing radiation.

Congenital tufts of hair along tge midline, such as the sacral "faun tail," may be associated with underlying spinal defects.

[[9]]

How are changes in the MMP2 gene related to health conditions?

Defects in MMP2 are the cause of Torg-Winchester syndrome (TWS)[1]; also known as multicentric osteolysis nodulosis and arthropathy (MONA). TWS is an autosomal recessive osteolysis syndrome. It is severe with generalized osteolysis and osteopenia. Subcutaneous nodules are usually absent. Torg-Winchester syndrome has been associated with a number of additional features including coarse face, corneal opacities, patches of thickened, hyperpigmented skin, hypertrichosis and gum hypertrophy. However, these features are not always present and have occasionally been observed in other osteolysis syndromes.

hypertrichosis resources

[[10]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancemiller (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Congenital forms of hypertrichosis are a dominant trait which has been linked to the X chromosome None of your examples reference a sex-linked form. In fact, the first is stated as autosomal and one of the others is an error in Chromosome 17. Really need some clarification here!--JimmyButler (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Acquired patterned hypertrichosis is an increase in hair growth in a pattern formation, and, similar to acquired generalized hypertrichosis, is an ominous sign of internal malignancy. The term ominous does not feel "encylopedic".

• Acquired hypertrichosis is gained after birth as a side effect of a drug, 'or from another cause'. Would you consider stating the "other causes". Of the forms of acquired - I fail to see the causes stated of any. There is no mention of the specific drugs nor any reference to other causes. There is - in general - a lack of detail or vagueness to the overall article.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• The gene that causes hypertrichosis is believed to be from the time when primates were evolving to men. This needs more. I thought we were primates?!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dropping in to nitpick

Just a few minor observations: I scanned through the talk page, and didn't see them addressed, but I haven't read thoroughly, so forgive me if they've been addressed or talked about:

1. Is it necessary to have so many subheadings? I understand that you want to organize the article and make it as accessible as possible; however, right now they cause more confusion (in my own opinion, at least)than they should. Perhaps eliminate the "cause" section under each, instead incorporating it into the description of each individualized disease? Or better yet, move the "cause" subheading into its own section, entitled "Causes" and address each disease in prose form. You could do the same with "Occurrence."
2. I noticed that you deleted Doc's inclusion of an "Epidemiology"section. This deserves further explanation. Most medical articles are set up in a format which is standardized (see WP: MEDMOS), as it makes referencing easier, and also generally looks better. Your edit note, "Epidemiology consists of the incidence, distribution, and possible controls of a disease. This is in other sections and cannot be generalized." seems to be more of a refusal to re-structure the article than an actual argument against an Epidemiology section.
3. If you do choose to keep the formatting that you have now, watch out. Stubby one-or-two-sentence sections will get you blasted at FA, if not GA.

Strombollii (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We decided to include the cause and occurrence with each type of hypertrichosis instead of generalizing them in an epidemiology section. They could all be included in an epidemiology section, however this would just separate the information even further as each type of hypertrichosis has a different cause and occurrence. We have discussed this and decided that, for now, this is the best possible solution. If you, or anyone else, feels that they have a better way of organizing this information, feel free to suggest it. –Vancemiller (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: I feel like you're going to get burned at GA or FA because the article, while obviously covering a substantial range of information, looks like little more than a list. Some reviewers (I know that I, personally had experience with them) will fail a GA because of short sections. Condensing the article to avoid sub-sub headings (i.e. removing the "Causes" and "Occurrences" subheadings and incorporating that information into the disease description) may be the best mid-ground.

However, I am still a proponent of a more traditional MEDMOS approach. And I feel you may meet resistance down the road (especially at FA, where multiple reviewers are contributing their opinions to the overall success of your article), if you do not attempt to follow such a route of formatting. Of course, you're probably best off getting someone with experience, like Doc James or Axl to contribute their two cents. Strombollii (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I will add a few short comments:

It is said that epidemiology cannot be generalized yet we manage to do this with every other condition discussed on wikipedia from cancer to headaches. I agree with the above users comments.

The relationship between hirsutism and hypertrichosis needs to be fleshed out as they are often used interchangeably. If you look at the ICD10 code [11] which is what I recommend you go by hirsutism is a subtype of hypertrichosis. Therefore a summary of hirsutism is required here and probably a section in the causes section that is still required.

Classification section: Whos classification is this BTW?

The current presentation gives a lots of space to genetic condition well the vast majority of hypertrichosis is acquired. The genetic conditions should probably be summed up in the cause section and moved to a subpage to allow the detail regarding aquired hypertrichosis ( by far the majority of cases ) to shin though.

This page is still very narrow in scope. What about the psychological problems associated with this condition? That would belong in a section called "Signs and symptoms" or "Prognosis / Complications" PMID 19658203Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A section on diagnosis is required. This is from PMID 12444804 "However,the individual’s perception of an abnormality is important in determining whether or not medical care is sought. Significant racial and ethnic differences in normal hair growth patterns exist, and society plays an important role in setting the threshold level for ‘normality’, which is greatly determined by advertising for cosmetic treatments." The relation of the disease to culture needs to be address. This condition needs a global perspective.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

About the epidemiology section: This article summarizes a variety of diseases which have little in common besides the symptoms. For example, each congenital form of hypertrichosis is caused by a different genetic mutation. This makes combining everything into one section difficult. Could anyone provide a template, a suggestion, or some guidance as to how to combine the causes, occurrence, and anything else relating to epidemiology into one section? Thanks –Vancemiller (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Some reviews

We should try our best to use reviews to work on topics to start. Here is a German one (google translates) PMID 18340416. And another from 2002 PMID 12444804. We can help you get full copies if needed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you access PMID 18340416 for us? Thanks–Vancemiller (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone able to access full PubMed articles? An article like PMID 18340416 would really aid us in the completion of this article. –Vancemiller (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PMID full journals

I believe it would be much easier to fill the holes in our article if we had access to the full PMID journals. If anyone could help, it would most likely allow us to better this article to at least GA status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHAllstr (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Which do you need? We've all offered to try to get them. Strombollii (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconding Strombollii. You might also want to try this thing called the public library. Interlibrary loan can work wonders, although it actually requires effort. --Yohmom (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to however turn on your email in preferences.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hirsutism in the article

I have started a section on hirsutism. I agree that it is important to include in our article, however, there is already another article based on hirsutism alone. How much information do you think it is necessary to put on this article? Do you still believe it is necessary to mention more than briefly if there is already another article on hirsutism?--TimHAllstr (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have written a summary of hirsutism on the page, is it missing anything or is the information believed to be sufficient?--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Would simply suggesting a link to the hirsutism article be enough? KatieW1992 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No as under some classifications hirsutism is a type of hypertrichosis, a section under classification should be written summarizing it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pub med article

Would someone be able to access pub med article 18340416 for me?--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but would need an email address.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've enabled email with my account but I'm not sure as to how you will be able to find my address...So to make things simple just send it here. mailto:vancemiller@gmail.com –Vancemiller (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Have sent you a couple and here is an online one free http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17760904 Let me know if they work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the articles you just sent, thanks. I can't seem to figure out how to access the online one, the link takes me to an abstract with only the authors listed. –Vancemiller (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Which PMID? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This one: PMID 17760904. –Vancemiller (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry was mistaken there is not easy access.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

VanceMiller and I have separated the causes and ocurrence sections from the classifications. There are still subheadings, which we will fix. We are just curious to know if anyone has an idea for a format of the epidemiology section.--TimHAllstr (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement: Hypertrichosis is either congenital (present at birth), or acquired later in life, found in the introduction does not indicate that it is a formal means on classification; however, you have based your organization of the article on this bit of info. Does your current method of organization (based on method of contraction) serve as a "formal" means of classification or is it your way of grouping the disorder? If it is the former then you may wish to emphasize that in the introduction. If not, then we need to seek guidance on the correct classification. Then there is the aspect of local or general body distribution. It is mentioned in the introduction but I don't see a follow through in the classification. Is that a formal means of organization - if so perhaps it could serve as a way to structure the multitude of diseases in a more inclusive category with less subheadings? It seems, at present, your biggest barrier is organizing the "headings" in effort to avoid creating a list. Once you create the accurate "grouping", then locating information and working on prose can begin. Somewhere - Someone -has a logical means of organization. Perhaps a quick view of Encarta - Britannica - World Book - might give you insight into a logical method of grouping? Happy Holidays!--JimmyButler (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The current style of grouping is our way of doing it. It seemed logical to group the disorders by a common characteristic which they share. Is there a better way of doing this? –Vancemiller (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Disease box

This needs to be expanded. Add emedicine for example [12] But please do not quote directly from emedicine rather find the original research. Lots of emedicine refs are looked upon poorly at GA and FA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the infobox. I have a template, but what should be included in it?

Hypertrichosis

–Vancemiller (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of these will have links including eMedicine and medlineplus. What help is looking at other pages and seeing how they did it than do that here. Looks at some of the other FA and GA to give you ideas.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of OMIM articles about hypertrichosis. How should I go about choosing one? I've added more to the infobox. Is there a place to find the remaining information? –Vancemiller (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypertrichosis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have started the review on the talk page. I will add a few short comments:

1. It is said that epidemiology cannot be generalized yet we manage to do this with every other condition discussed on wikipedia from cancer to headaches. I agree with the above users comments.
2. The relationship between hirsutism and hypertrichosis needs to be fleshed out as they are often used interchangeably. If you look at the ICD10 code [13] which is what I recommend you go by hirsutism is a subtype of hypertrichosis. Therefore a summary of hirsutism is required here and probably a section in the causes section that is still required.
3. Classification section: Whos classification is this BTW?
4. The current presentation gives a lots of space to genetic condition well the vast majority of hypertrichosis is acquired. The genetic conditions should probably be summed up in the cause section and moved to a subpage to allow the detail regarding aquired hypertrichosis ( by far the majority of cases ) to shin though.
5. This page is still very narrow in scope. What about the psychological problems associated with this condition? That would belong in a section called "Signs and symptoms" or "Prognosis / Complications" PMID 19658203
6. A section on diagnosis is required. This is from PMID 12444804 "However,the individual’s perception of an abnormality is important in determining whether or not medical care is sought. Significant racial and ethnic differences in normal hair growth patterns exist, and society plays an important role in setting the threshold level for ‘normality’, which is greatly determined by advertising for cosmetic treatments." The relation of the disease to culture needs to be address. This condition needs a global perspective.

Reviewer: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As I know your class is trying to the this to GA I will leave open the review. As a heads up though there is a significant amount of work yet to be done. Best of luck.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Class seems to be done. The article improved significantly over the course of this effort yet does not unfortunately reach GA. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS

This page lists how to format an article. Please have a look at other GA and FA to get an idea of how to format the sections. Causes should for example be discussed in general with a section on: genetics, medication, environmental factors. How common the over condition is should be discribed under epidemiology. How prevalence varies globally and by ethnicity should be discussed in both the epidemiology and the causes sections.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Are all of the sections required? I've included all of them on my sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vancemiller/sandbox) and will begin to fill them in. I'm unsure of what to put in the classification section and the symptom section... The symptoms are described in the classification section. –Vancemiller (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

After much consideration; I too am a bit perplexed as to how best to organize this article. It appears to be a topic on a symptom rather than a specific disorder. Unfortunately it is a symptom with numerous causes; thus does not pigeon hole into the typical format used by other medical articles. This is likely why it has remained untouched for so long and why it is likely not to conform to rigid standards for GA for medical articles. The creation of so many subsections makes for cumbersome reading, no doubt the outcome of attempting to combine the multitude of causes into some level of organization. Since time is fast expiring with no clear solution in sight; it is likely that I will be the one grading this paper. Therefore, I suggest rather than adding even more subheadings; go through and verify and cite the information that is currently included. Then perform the best copy/edit that you are capable. When I grade research papers; verification of information is the make or break factor. I will print out a copy and subject it to the standards for a research document at an AP level. A gallant try my friends; the article is vastly expanded and I trust factually accurate. I too thought it would be an excellent selection; I also admire you for your courage (the medical articles are held to the highest of standards for obvious reasons). None-the-less, you could have gone with a cute, furry, animal; I will consider your willingness to take a risk when I'm scrutinizing your work.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it in not a nicely defined disease but is like a little like chest pain, abdominal pain, conjunctivitis or head ache. A section on differential diagnosis should replace one discussing cause / classification per say. I shall be working on addressing these sorts of conditions in the future as they are sort of the basis of my profession. How does one approach a symptoms on its way to a diagnosis. An important question indeed. People do not start with a diagnosis but a symtoms and some never do end end with a diagnosis. Think abdominal pain not yet specified.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My Perspective

Minor Concerns

• If you review the edit history; you will note the numerous minor edits I felt necessary. All of them were to reduce excessively verbose statements. As discussed in class; efficiency is appropriate for encyclopedic articles. Efficiency in writing is important; unless your teacher demands a minimum number of words!
• The statement in the introduction refers to werewolf syndrome. The cited source makes no reference to "syndrome" only that they were viewed as werewolves. A syndrome is a specific medical term; not to be used lightly.
• These forms of hypertrichosis are less common than acquired forms. After a review of the source; an import aspect missing in this statement is that the condition is "extremely rare". That can not be deduced in this comparison.
• Hypertrichosis lanuginosa: only 50 know cases reported since the middle ages! The extreme rarity of the case is worth mentioning. I see; we discover this later in our reading. I guess the organization of this will always be problematic - no fault of your own.
• Nevoid hypertrichosis: you emphasize that it is not connected to other diseases; however, the connection to spina bifida is note-worthy. What I'm seeing is a rather stark listing of the various types; when in realty their is a great amount of information that goes unremarked in your article. Any one of the forms you've listed would have served you well as a stand alone article. Instead. we have a list which may or may not relay the essential information associated with the disorder. Under a GA attempt - this would relate to "Well Researched". This skimming of the details relates back to the theme of this article and the attempt to describe a symptom and not an actual disorder. Perhaps down the road - stubs will be created for the numerous disease you've introduced here.
• Hypertrichosis is often mistakenly classified as hirsutism. Hirsutism is a type of hypertrichosis exclusive to women and children, resulting from an excess of androgen sensitive hair growth. I think the contrast should be established with an addendum like this "whereas hypertrichosis affects only non-androgen dependent body hair".
• Patterned forms of hypertrichosis cause hair growth in patterns. I would like to see this more thoroughly explained. I'm assuming normal hair growth is random; however, I'm so very curious as to what constitutes a pattern. Are the patterns random? Is there a theme as in the shape of a "?" or "666". It begs for elaboration. I do believe one of your references mentioned a "Fawn tail".
• Organization: You have made considerable improvements to conform to Wikipedia standards for medical articles. The article is still cumbersome; forcing one to skip about to seek answers. This is again - no fault of yours - simply the outcome of cramming so many disorders under one heading and having to address disorders that do not belong (Hirsutism).
• There are vast sections of text that could benefit from an illustration. Visual appeal is subjective; however, encyclopedias must take that into account. I suspect there are specialist that would release pictures of the specific forms, if you had inquired.
• In the research the information regarding "frequency" failed to make it into the article. Perhaps an Epidemiology Section could add further to the chaos on the page.
• External Links section.... only one on the Burma Family. You should remove this section or provide reputable external resources.

The See Also section may need some attention. I didn't see anything in Skin Lesions that was relevant nor Skin Disease... and don't say "It was already there!"

But it was already there! The "external links" and "see also" sections definitely received the least of our attention. It is our own fault for not finding out how they should be used. –Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Attributes

• I truly scrutinized the citations; of the ones I could access, the alignment was flawless. This article is very well cited with a cross-section of reputable references.
• There are no plagiarism issues that I could identify. The text was sufficiently reworded without loss of content.
• The feedback from the community was limited to one perspective; however, the interactions with your GA reviewer were taken to heart and your responses were respectful. This has lead to a respectable article on this subject.
• Conforms to wikipedia formatting; use of images and citation formatting was adequate to the task. No doubt an FA attempt would require a diligent clean-up, however, very few possess the skill to meet those criteria.

Suggestion

The article has introduced a significant number of future Wikipedia topics related to this Symptom. The potential to produce informative articles on the disorders introduced here shows that there is still room for additional contributions to the Wiki data base. I've not reviewed the Dermatology selections on Wikipedia; however, you have added to the TO-D0-LIST.

This article would probably do better as a list of all the subtypes of hypertrichosis with each type having its own article. –Vancemiller (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Closure

I'm contemplating a grade; however, I will pause long enough for you to address or defend any concerns or should others wish to compliment or criticize. For your peace of mind ---- I am pleased. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This was definitely a beast that both Vance and I did not foresee; however, I am proud of our contributions and hope to one day bring this article to at least GA status soon. I will do my best to address as many of the concerns that you have named if we have any time at all. Thank you.--TimHAllstr (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Terminal

Is there some other meaning? Terminal means like to be fatal Victuallers (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminal hairs are thick, long, and dark, as compared with vellus hair. Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Terminal does NOT mean fatal. lol! Terminal means when something ends. If your hair falls out when it is 20cm, that is your terminal hair length. When it stops growing. Same meaning as any other way it is used. 119.92.93.84 (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Gingival Hyperplasia link

This line: "This condition is usually accompanied by gingival hyperplasia.[3]" redirects to Gingival enlargement, where in the first paragraph, it states: "This [page] is strictly a clinical description of the condition and avoids the erroneous pathologic connotations of terms used in the past such as hypertrophic gingivitis or gingival hyperplasia." So I'm wondering, should this link be removed since it doesn't link to a useful page? 217.166.94.1 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but I had no idea what gingival hyperplasia was until I read the explanation at the Gingival enlargement article. So I think the link is helpful. Note that article does explain gingival hyperplasia specifically in the first section after the lead. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some other sort of definition can be given. "Gingival," "hyper," and "plasia" are all medical terms that mean "gums," "many," and "growth" respectively (all together, overgrowth of the gums). Thus gingival hyperplasia isn't a specific disease, but rather a broad disorder that may have many causes.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Chewbaca

Is the star-wars character based on this? --41.151.124.43 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hypertrichosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100311165126/http://www.hirsutism.info/hirsutism.html to http://www.hirsutism.info/hirsutism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007072523/http://dermatologytimes.modernmedicine.com/dermatologytimes/issue/issueDetail.jsp?id=10462 to http://dermatologytimes.modernmedicine.com/dermatologytimes/issue/issueDetail.jsp?id=10462

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

First Recording of Hypertrichosis.

After reading on Wikipedia that the first recorded case of hypertrichosis was Petrus Gonsalvus in the fifteenth century, I thought you might find the following observation interesting. Hypertrichosis was first mentioned in the book of Genesis in the Bible in chapter 25 when fraternal twins were born to Isaac and Rebekah. It states in verse 25 that the first child born was covered in red hair, so they called him Esau which means hairy. There are also further allusions to Esau's hairiness in chapter 27:11-12 where it states that Esau is still hairy, so I guess he had congenital hypertrichosis. Hope you find this interesting and update your historical recordings of the condition accordingly. Regards, Lee McLaurin, grantlee2.mcl@hotmail.com 101.191.237.112 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)