Talk:Exposome

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exposome article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 5 March 2013 by reviewer Nimuaq (talk · contribs).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exposome. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130108131952/http://exposomealliance.org:80/ to http://exposomealliance.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Check on complex disease statistic

This article mentions, "for complex disorders specific genetic causes appear to only account for 10-30% of the disease incidence." I would like to see some sort of citation. For example, 40-60% of the risk for coronary artery disease is heritable, according to Swedish twin studies and GWAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.50.110 (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academic spam

In these diffs I cleared out a bunch of unsourced or self-sourced content hyping grants received etc. These diffs. This was not even close to encyclopedic content. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Here I cleared content based on recent-when-added primary sources. We should be building content giving the state of play in the field - which we get from book chapters and literature reviews -- not "hot news" based on recently published research papers which may never amount to anything. This is core to what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how this statement "For complex disorders, specific genetic causes appear to account for only 10-30% of the disease incidence, but there has been no standard or systematic way to measure the influence of environmental exposures. Some studies into the interaction of genetic and environmental factors in the incidence of diabetes have demonstrated that "environment-wide association studies" (EWAS, or exposome-wide association studies) may be feasible.[15][16] However, it is not clear what data sets are most appropriate to represent the value of "E".[17]" is not based on primary sources only. I find your blind trust of secondary sources and only secondary sources highly contradictory to what the scientific world believes in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcalex286 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found here WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcalex286 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And check out this page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources, read it carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcalex286 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I just found out it's a wikipedia policy that GOOD REPUTABLE PRIMARY SOURCES can be used! unlike what you have been preaching. And this page is not about historical accounts, these studies all include solid peer-reviewed public data, anyone can look at them! WP:PRIMARY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcalex286 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the policy regime around sourcing. You are not following WP:PRIMARY and people before you didn't follow it as well.

Additionally nothing is "new" in Wikipedia - articles have no datelines and in a few years the "new" study will be old. Read WP:RELTIME.

I will request other folks to review. You are spamming Wikipedia and edit warring to do so Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree w/ Jytdog--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, I was an idiot to think that Wikipedia holds any values in current world of medicine anyway. Enjoy your love for secondary sources. No scientists would ever consider them superior to primary sources. Oh and your "other folks" also don't mean anything in the scientific world. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcalex286 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I find your approach of deleting everything you do not like highly questionable and insulting. It is true that nothing is never new, and the edit can be simply removing "new" from the sentence. It is also ironic that you do not want to let actual experts on the topic to write anything about the topic (because I guarantee you they will also use primary sources, as that is how it has been done since the beginning of natural science). Based on your claims, the entire "exposome" page should be taken down as there are simply no substantial "secondary" or "tertiary" articles on this topic, because it is a new field!! I strongly disagree with the idea that Wikipedia should wait for a few more years before putting the knowledge in when they become textbook (And it is the scientists who write the textbook), people can always revise and make changes should any of the primary studies become obsolete or wrong in the process, just as how scientific world corrects itself over time. Before that happens, publications on peer-reviewed reputable journals is as good as it can possibly get, and entire fields of science build on top of these primary articles, not reviewing articles! Forcing the entire wikipedia to be a few years lagging behind is impractical and short-sighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcalex286 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Environmental factors

As this is what this article is about. New work does not indicate new concept. Article was created by someone using refs they wrote themselves... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge of Exposome to Environmental factor; a post-genomic attempt to re-invent the wheel and pad some grant applications. Has anyone, ever, been fooled by such childish deception (or, should I say, grantsmanship)? Such a merge has the advantage that it cites modern peer-reviewed research which clearly support the rather obvious idea that the environment affects (modifies and causes) disease. On a more sober note ... can I suggest that Exposome should have a separate section, to which this page would redirect, as it is a term which has entered the lexicon of a notable subset of people. Perhaps Exposure science could be treated similarly, but that is perhaps a discussion for another place. Klbrain (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undid Merge to Environmental factors

There have been a lot of recent development as well as global initiatives in this field. The stub in the section on Environmenal factors simply can't do the Exposome topic sufficient justice on that page, so I have added an original full-length article. Besides, Wikipedia has exposome pages in other languages e.g. http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Exposome - why is an exception being introduced that potentially limits English readers?