Wikipedia

Talk:Amphetamine#To do

Featured articleAmphetamine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 3, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 19, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
November 30, 2013Good article nomineeListed
January 22, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 21, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 1, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 8, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 14, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
Toolbox

Multiple Effect Citations Needed

[edit]

Why does this page list increased cognitive performance and increased muscle strength as effects? There have been no specifically conclusive, academically acceptable or even scientifically reasonable studies done to show that either of these effects occur in a significant enough portion of the general population to include them as "effects". There have, however, been studies to the contrary. 74.140.151.89 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sections are cited by systematic reviews with meta-analysis of high-quality controlled trials, albeit with varying statistical designs. I don’t know what you consider to be a more scientifically rigorous methodology than meta-analysis for estimating effect sizes, but there’s no “better” scientific methodology than that to establish a drug effect, provided the inclusion of studies is unbiased/systematic and the included studies have adequate statistical designs (i.e., meta-analysis of RCTs with sufficient sample sizes and consistent, minimally-biased estimators is ideal).
If you’ve read different meta-analyses than the ones cited and they happen to have divergent/inconsistent conclusions, please link them here and I’ll edit the section(s) accordingly. Otherwise, the article isn’t going to change based on your opinion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the edit for lisdexamphetamine & CDS

[edit]

In this edit, I included cognitive disengagement syndrome as a condition treatable by amphetamine. It was redacted here on the basis of an absent secondary source and it being lisdexamphetamine.

First, contrary to the statement, I believe I have cited a secondary source: the International Consensus Statement on CDS. It is a scientific consensus, analysis and evaluation/review of the scientific literature including the primary evidence of lisdexamphetamine as a treatment. As the WP:Secondary states: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources".

Second, lisdexamphetamine is a valid derivative of amphetamine. As stated in the article: "currently, pharmaceutical amphetamine is prescribed as racemic amphetamine, Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or the inactive prodrug lisdexamfetamine".

Thus I fail to see the issue here. Please discuss. Thanks. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD summarizes the body. There is no mention of cognitive disengagement syndrome in the body and it isn't prominent enough (see WP:UNDUE) to be added to the lead.
I know lisdexamphetamine formulation will be converted to dexamphetamine but the sources should mention amphetamine. Besides, the very source you cited is a proposal/study asking to recognize CDS as a distinct syndrome (which means it still hasn't been recognized). This is primary source, a clinical trial. And this doesn't even mention amphetamine and still is WP:UNDUE. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a proposal for it to be recognised. It’s a consensus in changing terms. They concluded: “it is evident that CDS has reached the threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome”. While the clinical trial itself does not mention the term CDS, it is cited as part of the international consensus and refers to the same syndrome as they make plain. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CDS is not recognized yet. You can come back once standardized diagnostic manuals recognize it. Your source is a study and not a prominent one either. See what WP:WEIGHT says. --WikiLinuz (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also didn't address the fact the neither of your sources mention "amphetamine" at all, besides them being poor sources to be used here. You cannot add UNDUE material into lead when there is no mention of it in the body. --WikiLinuz (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true! I have to reiterate, as the international consensus states: "it is evident that CDS has reached the threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome". This is the consensus of all the world's leading experts. Since you are directly disagreeing with their robust conclusion, then I look forward to you citing a peer-reviewed rebuttal.
By the way, diagnostic manuals are not leading the research, but follows it and often a decade or two behind where the research is at the time. And the decisions made by the APA are also political, not just scientifically-based so its hard to know where this will go in the subsequent DSM version. Thus the condition not being recognised in diagnostic manuals does not preclude it from being a distinct syndrome and to claim otherwise is to contradict the scientific consensus. Plus, it objectively is prominent despite what you claim; all documented research since it's publication uses the CDS term on the basis of this consensus that I can locate. And, again, it is a scientific consensus which means it is prominent; consensus means the view is held by the majority of scientists in the field which therefore (from what I can read) does not violate WP:WEIGHT in the slightest. To imply otherwise here is to permeate a falsehood.
And on what basis are you suggesting sources cannot specify a derivative of amphetamine? The article states: "pharmaceutical amphetamine is prescribed as racemic amphetamine, Adderall, dextroamphetamine, or the inactive prodrug lisdexamfetamine". Please can you demonstrate that a source cannot be specifying an amphetamine derivative?
On a last note, contrary to your reversive edit on the lisdexamfetamine page, It is not an "advocacy study". The fact that CDS has reached the recognition and evidence threshold is not a promotive idea, it's a statement of fact, as the international scientific consensus makes plain. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, diagnostic manuals are not leading the research, but follows it and often a decade or two behind - WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia does not lead either. Wikipedia reports it if only it is recognized by mainstream standardized diagnostic manuals. You cannot use ongoing research as a fact, even if a group of researchers agree on a consensus. Until it is established, by that I mean, recognized by standardized diagnostic manuals, it cannot be included on Wikipedia as a distinct medical condition (like CRYSTAL says, Wikipedia does not predict future so you cannot write it in Wikipedia's voice).
Your own source states, Much work remains to further clarify its nature (e.g., transdiagnostic factor, separate disorder, diagnostic specifier) [...].
the condition not being recognised in diagnostic manuals does not preclude it from being a distinct syndrome - Yes it does, at least here.
since it's publication uses the CDS term on the basis of this consensus that I can locate - Anyone can go to Google Scholar and type in "cognitive disengagement syndrome" to get all. That's not the point.
does not violate WP:WEIGHT in the slightest - Did you even read the WP:LEAD I linked? UNDUE and WEIGHT I mentioned is related to this.
And on what basis are you suggesting sources cannot specify a derivative of amphetamine? - WP:SYNTH, you cannot combine one source and another and write a novel synthesis. The source must state amphetamines. I say this because the source itself is primarily dependent on the clinical trial source (it merely reports lisdexamphetamine trials).
I think you misunderstood by what I mean by advocacy. I meant, it is a conclusion of a working group proposing to replace the "SCT" with "CDS". Like I said, just because they say "it meets threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome" does not mean it is yet a distinct syndrome (which your source states in the very next sentence). --WikiLinuz (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia reports it if only it is recognized by mainstream standardized diagnostic manuals"
- May you please provide the relevant references or indicate precisely where this is stated? I do not see this specification in the WP:CRYSTAL you linked. Moreover, I can find a variety of conclusions maintained in related articles that contradict the standardised diagnostic manual (e.g. DSM). For example, emotional dysregulation being a core symptom of ADHD. Yet, per DSM diagnostic standards, it is not.
"Anyone can go to Google Scholar and type in "cognitive disengagement syndrome" to get all. That's not the point."
- Well, I was primarily contesting your point that it is "not prominent" and a "poor study". It's a scientific consensus, therefore it does not violate WP:WEIGHT that you referenced from what I can read. A scientific consensus objectively means it is prominent. To address your latter claim, no, it is not a poor study. It's a peer-reviewed international scientific consensus elucidating the mountain of research on CDS. There is nothing "poor" about it.
"Your own source states, Much work remains to further clarify its nature (e.g., transdiagnostic factor, separate disorder, diagnostic specifier) [...]." + "Like I said, just because they say "it meets threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome" does not mean it is yet a distinct syndrome (which your source states in the very next sentence)"
- You are conflating the terms syndrome and disorder, and contextually, in extension. First, any notion that experts are self-refuting their own conclusion (specifying it is a distinct syndrome then not) is an absurd proposition at any surface-glance. It is also wrong, as they do not follow up by stating it is not a distinct syndrome as you claim; they're referring to differentiating it from ADHD in the context of certain organisations (e.g. APA). That's why the term syndrome was selected as "disorder" implies unanimous establishment by organisations. Yet, CDS is simultanously a distinct condition - hence their conclusion and terminology of syndrome.
"WP:SYNTH, you cannot combine one source and another and write a novel synthesis. The source must state amphetamines. I say this because the source itself is primarily dependent on the clinical trial source (it merely reports lisdexamphetamine trials)."
Ok, accepted. Still, a) this article maintains that amphetamine can be prescribed as lisdexamfetamine, an actual derivative (but I shan't belabour this point further but would appreciate any better clarification on that); b) this does not stand in the lisdexamfetamine article.
"I think you misunderstood by what I mean by advocacy. I meant, it is a conclusion of a working group proposing to replace the "SCT" with "CDS". Like I said, just because they say "it meets threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome" does not mean it is yet a distinct syndrome..."
- No, it's an international scientific consensus, which the report group merely reports, nor is it a "proposition" or an "advocacy". This fact is evident by their conclusion which states; "To experts in the field, it is evident that CDS has reached the threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome. Still, there is much more work to be done in further clarifying its nature, etiologies, demographic factors, relations to other psychopathologies, and linkages to specific domains of functional impairment". Proposition would imply it has not yet reached the threshold of recognition as a distinct syndrome, but instead are suggesting it should. That is not what was concluded.
CDS meets validity as a distinct syndrome as established by said scientific consensus. The syndrome is considered valid because: 1) well-trained professionals in a variety of settings and cultures agree on its distinction plus presence or absence using well-defined methods and scientific findings and 2) the diagnosis is useful for predicting a) additional problems the patient may have (e.g., difficulties learning in school); b) future patient outcomes (e.g., risk for unemployment; c) unique pattern of response rates to treatment (e.g., medications and psychological treatments); and d) features that indicate a consistent set of causes for the condition (e.g., findings from genetics, twins or brain imaging). They also concluded: ". This constellation of symptom dimensions is considered to be a syndrome because of the higher co-occurrence (inter-correlation) or coherence of these symptoms with each other and inter-relatedness of its dimensions relative to their relationship with symptoms/dimensions of other psychopathologies (ie, internal validity) and unique association and prediction with functional outcomes when covarying other psychopathologies (ie, external validity)". Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The working group conclusion/consensus citation isn't apt here. Neither is a clinical trial. If you cannot find a secondary, high-quality, peer-reviewed WP:MEDRS review articles, medical textbooks, or meta-analysis that states amphetamines (or their derivates) is indicated or can be used to treat/manage "cognitive disengagement syndrome," you cannot add it here.
And the sources in question do not meet this criteria. --WikiLinuz (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2024

[edit]
‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging with Edit protected. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This section “ The oral bioavailability of amphetamine varies with gastrointestinal pH;[74] it is well absorbed from the gut, and bioavailability is typically 90%.[93] Amphetamine is a weak base with a pKa of 9.9;[94] consequently, when the pH is basic, more of the drug is in its lipid soluble free base form, and more is absorbed through the lipid-rich cell membranes of the gut epithelium.[94][74] Conversely, an acidic pH means the drug is predominantly in a water-soluble cationic (salt) form, and less is absorbed.[94]” under the sub heading “Pharmacokinetics” is not relevant to Lisdexamphetamine. The pro drug is almost completely absorbed from the gastro system into the blood stream, and the majority of conversion from Lisdexamphetamine to Dextroamphetamine + Lysine happens in the blood stream. The pH is therefore not a factor in bioavailability for this drug. Please see here for evidence:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873712/

The section in Jimmymozzer (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimmymozzer Re: "The oral bioavailability of amphetamine [...]" under the sub heading “Pharmacokinetics” is not relevant to Lisdexamphetamine.
This wiki article is on amphetamine, which "is about mixtures of levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine", per the italicised text in the first line of the article. Additionally, the top of this talk page has a "frequently asked questions" banner that solely covers whether LDX is covered an amphetamine, in which the answer that LDX is "chemically distinct from the amphetamine enantiomers (i.e., levoamphetamine and dextroamphetamine)" is provided. So, the content covered in the pharmacokinectics section of this article (i.e., the bioavaliability of amphetamine and its enantiomers) is entirely appropriate given that this is the amphetamine article and not the LDX article.
In any event, your concern regarding the coverage of LDX's unique conversion to dextroamphetamine by a rate-limiting enzyme in blood is actually addressed both in the first paragraph of the pharmacology section of the LDX article and in the third paragraph of the PK section in this very article (i.e., amphetamine). Despite the heavy reliance on transcluding content from this article (i.e., amphetamine), all of the wiki articles covering different pharmaceutical amphetamines/dose-formulations (e.g., Adderall, dextroamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine) have unique content added to address notable characteristics where applicable; case in point: when I wrote the binge eating disorder section for the LDX article, I purposefully wrote the source code in a way that only allows the coverage of that content to be rendered in the medical uses section of the LDX article - and not, say, the Adderall article - if only because LDX is the only amphetamine-dosage formulation to have its clinical use and efficacy in BED covered in systematic reviews and meta-analysis'.
With all that said, I do agree that it's a bit odd that the PK section of the LDX article has the passage about oral absoprtion and gastrointestinal pH included in the transclusion from this article. Though, I suppose that may just be a limitation of wikipedia's source code. In any event, I'll take a look the source code when I have some free time later today and see if there's anything that can be done about it. If it can be removed without breaking the other articles that use the same transclusion, then I'll likely see to it. Professional Crastination (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected page edit request

[edit]

Hello. Requesting that the following category be added to this semi-protected page: 

[[Category:Monoaminergic activity enhancers]]

See the monoaminergic activity enhancer page for details and sources. Thank you. 98.191.202.231 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Professional Crastination (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule II revert.

[edit]

@Irruptive Creditor,

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for the edit summary in my first revert. I mistakingly referred to WP:MEDRS because the Rx label happens to be MEDRS-compliant when I meant to refer to WP:AGE MATTERS; you're correct that a drug's DEA schedule in the United States isn't necessarily a biomedical claim.

In any event, the reason why I've reverted your revisions are for two reasons. 1. The citation you've added was published well over five decades ago (see WP:AGE MATTERS). 2. We already had a more recent (i.e., May 2024) citation that meets WP:V and states the following outright:

"Adderall® contains amphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance."

The above quote is from USFDA-approved prescribing information (which a prescribing physician would have to read before issuing an associated Rx); the revision currently hosted by DailyMed was updated ~6 months ago and directly supports the statement about amphetamine's schedule II status in the United States, so there's no issue with verifiability. Acknowledging that, I'm not sure how replacing an up-to-date citation with a federal register from 1971 improves this article. It's not as if the claim that amphetamine is a schedule II drug is remotely controversial or has raised any verifiability concerns on this talk page.

This also applies to the changes reverted in the methamphetamine article because that case is virtually identical to what I've raised here. Professional Crastination (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that a product label is not a legal source useful for making legal claims such as legal status, legal sources are. Your arguments of recency hold little support for using a product label over the actual law as in the legal status section, when discussing other countries like Australia, the article cites the actual laws(Poison Standard), and not a product label. So then, upon what grounds is the United States or an Adderall product label so meritorious as to be the exception to this general trend of citing law when discussing law?
Among other reasons, linking to the law is preferable when considering there have been cases were the propriety of the move to Schedule II has been questioned and thus having a link to the actual scheduling order is helpful to practitioners and the public (see U.S. v Kendall (1989), U.S. v Kinder (1991), and such).
Considering no other editors in the four days since my edit are bothered or expressed seeing merit in using a product label, I will shortly upon making this comment, revert to the prior edition so as to not irritate others with this dispute. If we come to some contrary agreement or others are to chime in as to favor the product label, then so wills it. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. You make an excellent point regarding the uniformity of using legislation as corroborating sources for other jurisdictions (e.g., Australia). For that reason, I'm happy to accept your revert. Professional Crastination (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm just putting it out to other editors that I changed the mechanism used to selectively transclude content to amphetamine's child articles (i.e., Adderall and dextroamphetamine). Those articles now use labelled selection transclusion. In a nuthsell, this post is just asking everyone to be mindful of new "section begin" and "section end" tags above and below the three disorders covered in Amphetamine#Medical

This is how the source code appears on the amphetamine article:

This is how the source code appears on articles with the medical section transcluded:

No other selective transclusions from this article have been altered.

For context, when I wrote the Binge Eating Disorder section a few months ago, I originally intended for it to only transclude to the lisdexamfetamine article. This is because the current literature only covers amphetamine's treatment efficacy for BED when it's administered as LDX, as opposed to adderall and dextroamphetamine, which have notable differences compared to LDX (e.g., the immediate-release forms of the latter drugs confer treatment effects for approximately 3–4 hours, whereas LDX persists for about 12–14 hours).

As the amphetamine wiki article is the parent article of LDX, the BED content also appears here because this article receives much , much more traffic and consequently it's beneficial for readers to have this content available here. However, due to the way transclusions were previously coded in this article's source, I had to add an "ifpagename=" exception to render the BED content to LDX sans adderall & d-amph. As another editor pointed out in their edit notes, this template resulted in the BED section being treated as a subset of the ADHD section in the source code, even though BED had its own subheading. To address this, I've made changes to the source code. Moreover, I've appended invisible comments below the relevant headings on each transcluded article to let editors know that they will need to make edits on this article for their desired changes to render in the article they're currently editing.

The latter collapsed tab above has only been applied to adderall and dextroamphetamine. I haven't bothered to make the above changes to lisdexamfetamine largely because I'm lazy af (see: professional crastination ) and the page renders just fine ATM because it transcludes virtually all of the medical section. I might change the source code on LDX to mirror the other articles in the coming days, though. FWIW, I was planning on originally excluding narcolepsy from being transcluded to the LDX when I wrote that section for the amph article, but after discussing it with Seppi333 I agree that it's probably worthwhile to have content included there because narcolepsy is an example of a legitimate off-label use for LDX. Professional Crastination (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions

[edit]

Requesting input on this topic here at WikiProject Pharmacology. Thanks. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 15:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine monoamine release

[edit]

Do amphetamine and related drugs mediate their monoamine release via TAAR1 agonism and is this scientific consensus?

(See here at the WikiProject Pharmacology talk page for the extensive existing discussion.)

– AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at: WT:WikiProject Medicine. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlyInWikiWonderland, compared to the detailed and sometimes angry discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 18#Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions, I do not expect this RFC to be pointful, or even to get any other responses at all. The RFC question sounds like someone asking for help with their homework, and it's unclear how answering this question would affect any Wikipedia articles. I recommend that you withdraw it (that means removing the {{rfc}} template from the top of the section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AlyInwikiWonderland, I've dropped the Rfc header; if you wish to restart this Rfc as is, or start a different Rfc, add a new Rfc header as described at WP:RFCOPEN. (Note that copy-pasting the code in WaId's comment will not work.) But before you start one, please re-read WP:RFCBEFORE. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: My apologies. It's my first RfC. I read the instructions and thought I did things right but I guess not. Yeah, I kind of picked up by now that others are unlikely to respond. Is there anything you'd recommend instead for dispute resolution? Thank you. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 22:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AlyInWikiWonderland, speaking only for myself, apologies are not necessary, as you are clearly trying to do the right thing, and learning as you go. I'm sure WaId will respond as well, and offer you some good suggestions. By the way, thanks for all your contributions to articles on bio-medical topics; that's a tough area in which to edit, and you seem to be doing very well. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a difficult area to edit in.
Do you feel like you're able to persist in the discussion at WT:PHARM? That's probably the best page for finding people who know what they're talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: I appreciate the kind words. Thank you. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I'm conflicted and should be doing other things right now. But, in all probability, I'll be persisting in the discussion. I had requested input at WP:Pharm (and other WPs) earlier, but no one else responded. For now, I guess we'll just continue the discussion at WP:Pharm and see what happens from there. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Wikipedia:There is no deadline. If you all ultimately decide that this article has been overconfident about that particular mechanism, then it's worth fixing the article, but whether that happens in January or in June is not the critical point. You're all long-time editors, and I expect you all to be around and interested even if someone needs to take a break for a while. Put your real life first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: Thanks, that's good to know. I'll keep it in mind. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 02:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page copyvio banner

[edit]

In this edit of 16:03, 1 September 2017 by Seppi333 (talk · contribs), the talk page template {{Backwardscopyvio}} was added among the templates at the top of this Talk page, focusing attention on unattributed copying of content into this article, and naming "Amphetamine and Adderall#Mechanism of action" as the source articles of the copying. As this article is entitled "Amphetamine", I assume that formerly another, related article was involved in the copying, as well as the Adderall article. Seppi333, do you recall anything about this situation? Wikipedia's licensing requires all copying from other articles to be attributed, and there is no statue of limitations, so if they are still unattributed, then WP:RIA applies. Mathglot (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Yeah, I had to email the journal article's authors and notify them of the copyright infringement. They revised the article to include sufficient attribution to my satisfaction. If you rapidly scroll down through their article and the current amphetamine article, you'll see a lot of republished content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333, wow, thanks for that. Just for the record, I used Earwig to compare them, which gave a 91.6% similarity rating. Earwig couldn't read the pdf for some reason, although it normally does handles them, but I found an equivalent web page at {blacklisted omicsonline url redacted here to permit saving} and passed that to Earwig to get the evaluation. The {redacted Earwig result page url containing blacklisted url} also highlights the similar portions in each.
Notably, in my view of the page, your pdf link as well as all of the links in my comment are showing up with bright pink background in Preview mode, having been labeled as predatory or deprecated journals and highlighted by user script User:Headbomb/unreliable; I heartily recommend this script.
Post-script: I couldn't even save my message, because an edit filter trapped the omicsonline url as on the global spam blacklist!
P.P.S.: Sheesh, I can't show you the Earwig url, either, because it *contains* the omicsonline article url. Okay, so if you want to run the Earwig comparison, select-copy the article title and first three authors off the pdf, do a Google search, pick the result ending 'open-access/amphetamines-potent-recreational-drug-of-abuse-2155-6105-1000330.php?aid=91763', run an Earwig url search on the full article url against our Amphetamine article. Now this comment ought to be saveable! Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. I’ve experienced this issue before when I was an active editor. Annoying to work around it, isn’t it? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I found that article by Google image searching the images in the article. Was just curious if they’d been reused. Didn’t expect to find a journal article republishing them without attribution. Wouldn’t really care if they’d been republished on a forum/blog/etc.. I should probably check again to see if this problem recurred, but I’m dealing with a lot of shit irl right now, so that will have to wait. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the explanation; interesting story. I'll lurk (subscribed) in case anything else turns up. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2025

[edit]
‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging with Edit protected. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

In the cognitive performance section "Cognitive performance In 2015, a systematic review and a meta-analysis of high quality clinical trials found that, when used at low (therapeutic) doses,(...)" if applicable to the context, add a link on "low (therapeutic) doses" to the "effective dose" page or additionally change "therapeutic" to "effective" 107.159.249.191 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I don't see how linking effective dose is relevant? The dose is being specified as "therapeutic" to distinguish it from a larger or "recreational" dose. Both therapeutic and recreational doses are effective doses because they both have biological effects. SI09 (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is harder than most people thought -_-___...

[edit]

Amphetamine in a specific population seems to impair their color perception and cholinergic activity. Compared to Cocaine, which is stronger in people with Bipolar Type II, Amphetamine behaves as a monoamine transporter reversal agent instead of blocking reuptake allosterically like Cocaine. Some people with diminished muscarinic receptor count and higher Dopamine D1 receptor count in the prefrontal cortex are more motivated and vigilant but behave as conspiracy theorists, I have asked someone what is 1+1 and got 6 as a reply due to the question being a trick question, they couldn't even think it in AND and NOR gates which could equal 0. Another one is, "This way is up and this way is down, which way is up?". They point sideways thinking conspiracy and proceed to threaten to drug me with Haloperidol due to taking amphetamine whilst under the influence themselves, give up work and school, and this happens even of Levoamphetamine. They also become more addicted to evil, I wish this was other stimulants such as Methcathinone and Cathinone. Also isn't some Crystal Meth actually Amphetamine Hydrobromide?


The specific population is those in Cluster B and C personality disorders, they do prefer amphetamine but it seems to help with Cluster A personality disorders. Cluster A personality disorders do prefer methamphetamine over amphetamine, however.


0-_-____***((()((*() Fenetermine (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you've posted this at least, yet I still don't understand what you want changed in the article. This article already indicates that psychosis is a possible adverse effect of amphetamine. Professional Crastination (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, someone did actually annoy me personally but how is amphetamine making them more aggressive. It's like amphetamine induces "fight" but methamphetamine induces "flight" if that makes any sense. You're correct but they're on 30mg, as someone who's done 400mg+ in a day, how are they in psychosis? Fenetermine (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my knowledge of its pharmacodynamics and neuroanatomy, amphetamine doesn't make people inherently more aggressive because it doesn't bind within the amygdala. It makes almost everyone more assertive, but aggression is generally only something it would promote when a person finds that aggression in a hostile situation leads to the most rewarding outcome.
That might sounds odd, but motivational salience is centrally tied into its pro-assertive effect and the fight or flight response, meaning:
incentive salience + anger -> fight,
aversive salience + fear -> flight.
In other words, whether amphetamine promotes assertiveness or aggression really just depends on a person's underlying emotional state and the social context. It doesn't really have any inherent effect on hostility itself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2025

[edit]
‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging with Edit protected. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Change therapeautic to therapeutic 2A06:5900:4C1:F800:5028:A60A:1F3D:3161 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD reviews update

[edit]

Looks like the reviews section could use an update. Several 2010-2015 reviews are used prominently. I think we could perhaps shorten the section and emphasize the relatively recent Cochrane reviews and the 2024 & 2025 reviews discussed while removing the 2010-2015 reviews. Thoughts? DataFocused (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems particularly relevant
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(24)00360-2/fulltext DataFocused (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cited that lancet meta-analysis in the article either at the end of last year or the start of this year. From memory, it's first appearance is in the sentence "a 2025 meta-analytic blah blahblah" in the ADHD section; I worded all recent secondary sources from 2024/2025 that I cited in that section to highlight recency. I think I also added it to the last paragraph of the ADHD section to contrast it to the findings of a Cochrane review about side effect dropouts relative to overall acceptability (e.g., dropping out because the medication isn't treating ADHD/inducing a clinically significant drug effect).
In general, it's probably best to have recent articles. However, I don't believe the lancet article can play a larger role in the article (i.e., substituting other citations) because the sampled population are adults and this medication is used extensively in child (from memory, ADHD is the most diagnosed psychiatric condition in children, at least in Australia). Also, a lot of ADHD reviews are limited by the short-term nature of most RCTs. So, because the reviews from the 2010s cover multi-year longitudinal studies (among other secondary outcome measures beyond efficacy for primary symptoms), I don't mind having the current citations stay. It's not like contradicting research findings have been produced since. As an aside, almost all of the citations I used to write the narcolepsy section were published before 2020 and that's not likely to change because of the general lack of research interest/funding to study psychostimulants that aren't modafinil or novel compounds in vivo. Professional Crastination (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]