Talk:Dua's layer

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Ophthalmology Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Anatomy: Microanatomy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to microanatomy. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

A news item involving Dua's layer was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 June 2013.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Cornea was copied or moved into Dua's layer with this edit on 13 June 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Dua's layer be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

It is requested that an anatomical diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

The Science Daily currently used as reference 3 in the article, is an exact copy of a press release issued by the University of Nottingham. Crediting it to Science Daily gives the impression it's an independent source, when what that site does is almost entirely aggregating content from other sources, including Wikipedia. 1) Shouldn't we be linking to the original source, and 2) Is a press release a suitable source? This is a significant discovery but we should be careful when there are so few reliable sources published. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the history recently, but currently zero of the three sources used in the article lead to ScienceDaily. However, the UPI is a copy of the press release you mentioned, so I have removed it. The press release is also listed, and comes from website known for posting press releases for other research organizations. It isn't as if they did the research. And as to the third source, it is a well known, peer reviewed organization. I don't know why you marked all as questionable sources. John Holmes II (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the cite of the ScienceDaily reissue with one for the original press release the day before. As for the use of {{medrs}}, please read wp:MEDREV. It explains why. Being peer-reviewed is not a substitute for being a review, which is a secondary source. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The present version of the article does not have an image. I recommend the inclusion of an image or images.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When & if an appropriate image becomes available it will be included. Coinmanj (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note about medical research:

• Any thesis in medicine need to be confirmed by several scientists and multiple independent studies, this page is based on a single article which was published a few weeks ago!
• researchers around the word occasionally make extraordinary claims about their works. Very rarely we need to rewrite medical textbooks especially for a minor change in our understanding of anatomy.

Kiatdd (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the word 'purported' (as in 'purported newly discovered layer') in the light of your criticism, and much similar criticism in the 'In the News' discussion. The Macmillan Dictionary defines 'purported' as 'said by some people to be real or true, but not proved to be real or true', giving as an example 'The judges will now study this purported new evidence'. The core of the scientific process is based on reporting purported new evidence, but requiring that such new evidence be confirmed by further research. When we have only one paper, as here, 'purported' seems to be the appropriate word.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now linked 'purported' to 'Thesis Statement', as arguably the most relevant of the 'scientific' articles under 'proposition (disambiguation)' to which it might be linked - a good alternative might be 'Hypothesis'. 'Purported' itself currently redirects to 'Meaning', a very unsatisfactory disambiguation article, but that's a separate issue. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all that per wp:AVOID. It is also highly tangential to the subject. There's little real doubt that someone of Dua's accomplishments would be completely wrong about this finding, but his sense of its importance may still be less than completely objective. We can wait a few months for secondary sources, but the text doesn't need to have a discussion about that. wp:MEDREV makes allowances for credible primary sources in the interim.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editorial in the same issue of Ophthalmology disputes the existence of Dua's layer. 145.253.154.194 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tlhslobus and LeadSongDog, there is a standard for writing medical textbooks and articles. The 5 layer structure of cornea is an established fact (Epithelium, Bowman's layer, Stroma, Descemet's and endothelium). We almost never rely on a single article to challenge facts especially in a field like anatomy. Someone edited cornea and added Dua's hypothesis to the list of layers of the cornea. I think we need to restore cornea to its previous 5 layer structure as Leadsongdog mentioned.Kiatdd (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They claim

Recently, we have discovered a new layer in the pre-Descemets zone of the deep stroma (Dua’s layer) that will have profound effect on lamellar corneal surgery and posterior corneal pathology.

Also that the department

Lead by Professor Dua, the Cornea and Anterior-Segment unit of the Department of Ophthalmology

Group attribution, not individual, by his Uni.

Information from the link http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/pgstudy/courses/clinical-sciences/ophthalmology-and-visual-sciences.aspx

-- Starshine (yes, I know I'm not logged in right now) 99.51.74.201 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see it mentioned in this article, where a UK journalist interviewed Dua. The article provides that comment, as the sub-headline. They don't claim the professor said it.

There is a useful-looking image there, if their image archives are under a suitable license.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/13/dua-layer-previously-undetected-part-of-the-eye-spotted-for-first-time-3840767/

-- Starshine 99.51.74.201 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, inclusion of any such opinion would need attribution to someone knowledgeable and independent, not just a general science reporter. The image seems to have disappeared from their article, not sure why. We can wait for a review, wikipedia is wp:NOTNEWS and there is wp:NODEADLINE.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a video clip at p.118 here, from ESCRS 2012 Milan, Dua discussed "the possible presence of an exciting new layer in the posterior cornea called the pre-Descemet's stromal layer". I haven't yet been able to see anything on the 2007 conference presentations. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be turned into a usable citation saying Dua himself called it 'the POSSIBLE presence' of a layer (see more on all that in next section)? Tlhslobus (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will next be adding back the following text:

The Scientific Method requires that these results be independantly replicated before this possible discovery can be accepted as confirmed.[1] [2]

User Garrondo deleted this with the explanation :'While true, it is unrelated to the article, and hence probably mild Original research and unecyclopedic'

I disagree. It is 100% related to the article, at least in the sense of being 100% relevant to this article. We have an article about something which we seemingly all agree (including Garrondo) is only a possible discovery according to the rules of science. But it has been described as a discovery (not a possible discovery) throughout the media, including on Wikipedia's front page In The News section for a number of days (before I finally managed to get it lowered to a possible discovery for its final day there, after a long and exhausting fight). It was described as an (unqualified) discovery on this article until about 2 or 3 days ago. It continues to be described as an (unqualified) discovery in all 5 of the citations currently on display (see Appendix 1, as they will presumably change over time). While the article has been improved, it is still not obvious to a reader unfamiliar with the scientific method that it should still only be regarded as a possible discovery, and that will continue to be the case as long as it is not said clearly, explicitly, unambiguously, and prominently.

As such there is a need to spell out clearly, explicitly, unambiguously, and prominently (meaning in the lead section) to readers in plain language that an ordinary layperson can understand that it is still only a possible discovery according to the centuries-old rules of science. It is not unencyclopaedic to do this. It is utterly unencyclopedic to leave a situation where only the most scientifically literate can work out that it's still only a possible discovery (and the ill-informed would seem to include many otherwise well-informed people, including all those who have been honestly presenting it as an unqualified discovery both here and elsewhere). Even though spelling this out is not normally necessary in most such articles, the history of this affair means that this particular article needs such a spelling out. If there are any Wiki rules which can be quoted to suggest otherwise, they will likely be trumped by one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, namely WP:IAR, which orders us to ignore all rules that prevent us from improving Wikipedia. The problem will of course go away if and when satisfactory confirmation comes along, as it probably will fairly soon if the discovery is correct, as I'm inclined to expect.

At least to me, it seems rather strange (to put it mildly) to find myself accused of Original Research for writing what is agreed to be true and has been the orthodox scientific view for centuries, and is backed by quotations from recent scientific journals. But even if that were the case, which I would certainly dispute, I would argue justification under WP:IAR.

In his 'October 2012' section here on Talk (here, and see also Appendix 2 below in case it gets changed), User LeadSongDog seems to indicate that Dua himself has spoken of 'the POSSIBLE presence' of the layer. But what LeadSongDog wrote is a bit ambiguous, and I am currently unable to access the link he gives to check, and thus unable to turn this into a usable citation, as I would like to do, something along the lines of:

The Scientific Method requires that these results be independantly replicated before this possible discovery can be accepted as confirmed.[1] [2] In October 2012, Dua himself described it as 'the possible presence' of a new layer. [3]

If anybody can turn the October 2012 bit into a usable quote, or find some other similar usable quote, please do.

If somebody can find a better way of clearly, explicitly, unambiguously, and prominently spelling out in the article that it is still only a possible discovery, please do. But, in light of the issues raised above, please do not simply once again delete what I have written while putting nothing better in its place, unless you successfully justify yourself here first (see WP:BRD for the relevant Wikipedia rules).

'Appendix 1: the current 5 citations:

1.^ a b c d e f g Dua, H. S.; Faraj, L. A.; Said, D. G.; Gray, T.; Lowe, J. (2013). "Human Corneal Anatomy Redefined: A Novel Pre-Descemet's Layer (Dua's Layer)". Ophthalmology. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.018. edit
2.^ Olson, Samantha (13 June 2013). "New Cornea Layer Discovered In Human Eye: Doctors Predict Safer And Simpler Eye Treatments". Medical Daily. Retrieved 14 June 2013.
3.^ a b "New Layer Of Human Eye,'Dua's Layer,' Discovered Behind Cornea". Huffington Post Live Science. June 12, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
4.^ a b c d e Kristin Butler (June 12, 2013). "Scientists discover new layer of human cornea". UPI. Retrieved June 12, 2013. [unreliable medical source?]
5.^ "Scientists discover new layer of the human cornea" (Press release). University of Nottingham. June 12, 2013. Retrieved 11 June 2013.

Appendix 2: Dua's possible use of the word possible:
October 2012: In a video clip at p.118 here, from ESCRS 2012 Milan, Dua discussed "the possible presence of an exciting new layer in the posterior cornea called the pre-Descemet's stromal layer". I haven't yet been able to see anything on the 2007 conference presentations. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Tlhslobus (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways, I suspect what I've written is inadequate, and that what is really needed is mention and documentation of some of the places that have described it as an (unqualified) discovery. One way of doing this is to start the Scientific Method' sentence with "Despite being repeatedly described as a 'discovery'[1][2][3][4][5], the Scientific Method requires ...". But I'm currently inclined to leave that argument to somebody else.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read wp:BRD, noting that it is not wp:BRRD or any such. Revert warring is not acceptable behavior while discussion is ongoing. Garrondo is correct: we need a citable source for what we say, as required by the policy at wp:V.

So far, the sources we have are all dependent on what Dua has reported. Last October, Dua's video clip discussed a "possible presence". Since then, his group has published a new paper reporting on additional work (ref 1 above). That new work confirms that possibility, documenting it with direct photographic evidence. We have no source reviewing it, neither calling it into question nor confirming it. The primary source is the best source we have at this time. We have no citable evidence that would justify applying your discourse on the scientific method to this article, so for the time being we simply say what the available evidence says without either impugning or endorsing it.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I posted a couple of replies, then removed them until I study WP:MEDREV in detail, but anybody interested can presumably find them in the edit history, though I may well not want to stand over them when I've finished my study) Tlhslobus (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dua's Layer has been added as unqualified fact to the Descemet's membrane article. I don't dare amend it to explain it's just one study, but one of you experts might wish to do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!, somebody even added Dua's layer to template:Eye anatomy, I restored it to its previous version [1], someone else commented on Keratoconus talk [2], people are updating wikipedia articles based on Dua's article. I found a Wikipedia policy that might be relevant:WP:EXCEPTIONAL.Kiatdd (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph about this to keratoconus [3], saying that "corneal hydrops might be caused by" a tear in this recently discovered corneal layer. k18s (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. http://optometrytimes.modernmedicine.com/optometrytimes/news/sixth-layer-human-cornea-discovered
2. http://www.revoptom.com/content/d/web_exclusives/c/41849/

The previous mentions referred to are:

• Binder P.S. et al. "High-voltage electron microscopy of normal human cornea". Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. (1991) Jul;32(8):2234-43.
• Schlötzer-Schrehardt U et al. "Characterization of the cleavage plane in Descemet’s membrane endothelial keratoplasty". Ophthalmology. 2011 Oct;118(10):1950-1957.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also the followup by Dua: http://www.revoptom.com/content/d/letters_to_the_editor/c/43092

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]