Difference between revisions of "User talk:Michael"
(→Images) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Images== | ==Images== | ||
Hi Michael - I'm adding images into Wiki Commons with help from some non-pathologist assistants (OK - they are my kids). I'm going in after to clean up. I wont be insulted if anyone wants to remove some of the dodgy images from Libre but I include them as though technically they may be poor, they show something of interest. Regarding the breast - IMO - if one removes the in between or spongy diagnoses (like 'atypia') and focuses on diagnoses that actually have major effect on treatment, pathologists do great (and at a relatively low cost). Exceptional cases are thankfully usually pretty rare - including issues such as atypical Spitz vs level 3 melanoma. For these exceptional situations, effort should focus on molecular discriminants as it's pretty clear that routine histo is pretty worthless in those cases. Unfortunately, much of the 'pathologists suck' literature includes variance in unimportant diagnoses ie mild vs moderate atypia and/or misrepresentations of a few exceptional situations. BTW - I am going to try to ad a page on triple neg breast CA as that is a confusing issue that ties in to several diagnoses. | Hi Michael - I'm adding images into Wiki Commons with help from some non-pathologist assistants (OK - they are my kids). I'm going in after to clean up. I wont be insulted if anyone wants to remove some of the dodgy images from Libre but I include them as though technically they may be poor, they show something of interest. Regarding the breast - IMO - if one removes the in between or spongy diagnoses (like 'atypia') and focuses on diagnoses that actually have major effect on treatment, pathologists do great (and at a relatively low cost). Exceptional cases are thankfully usually pretty rare - including issues such as atypical Spitz vs level 3 melanoma. For these exceptional situations, effort should focus on molecular discriminants as it's pretty clear that routine histo is pretty worthless in those cases. Unfortunately, much of the 'pathologists suck' literature includes variance in unimportant diagnoses ie mild vs moderate atypia and/or misrepresentations of a few exceptional situations. BTW - I am going to try to ad a page on triple neg breast CA as that is a confusing issue that ties in to several diagnoses. [[User:Sarah|Sarah]] ([[User talk:Sarah|talk]]) 19:47, 19 March 2015 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:47, 19 March 2015
Editing
HI Michael - I was trying to form a page for mesenchymal chondrosarcoma with much failure - so I stuck what I was working on in the chondrosarc summary. If you can form a page for it great - if not I'll alter the format it's is in now. Cheers - Sarah (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2014 (EST)
Thanks Michael - I couldnt figure out how to get to a redirecting page that already exists. Cheers - Sarah (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2014 (EST)
Thanks again Michael - Totally helpful. Sarah (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2014 (EST)
Citing textbooks
Hi Michael -- What do you suggest for referencing if I'm citing a textbook, as they don't have a simple PMID I can use? For example, for a lot of smear stuff I tend to refer to Dr. Joseph's book (Diagnostic Neuropathology Smears). Is there any way to use something like Mendeley Desktop to help with references? Ana (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2015 (MST)
Images
Hi Michael - I'm adding images into Wiki Commons with help from some non-pathologist assistants (OK - they are my kids). I'm going in after to clean up. I wont be insulted if anyone wants to remove some of the dodgy images from Libre but I include them as though technically they may be poor, they show something of interest. Regarding the breast - IMO - if one removes the in between or spongy diagnoses (like 'atypia') and focuses on diagnoses that actually have major effect on treatment, pathologists do great (and at a relatively low cost). Exceptional cases are thankfully usually pretty rare - including issues such as atypical Spitz vs level 3 melanoma. For these exceptional situations, effort should focus on molecular discriminants as it's pretty clear that routine histo is pretty worthless in those cases. Unfortunately, much of the 'pathologists suck' literature includes variance in unimportant diagnoses ie mild vs moderate atypia and/or misrepresentations of a few exceptional situations. BTW - I am going to try to ad a page on triple neg breast CA as that is a confusing issue that ties in to several diagnoses. Sarah (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2015 (EDT)