Talk:Physiology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DTM2020UPRC. Peer reviewers: Alanis C. Santos Alvira, Ayub Shahada.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morrieormaury.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Camilamada15, DemiKilpatrick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Early discussion

The article about physiology is incorrect regarding origins of the field. Hippocrates "of cos"(460 BCE to 365 BCE) the article credits with starting physiological studies) actually studied in Egypt. Before Hippocrates, Imhotep (2667 BC - 2648 BC) of Egypt was the father of physiology and medicine, etc. In fact, contrary to what racists tend to believe today, even Hippocrates credited Imhotep as the Father of Medicine. (Recently additional evidence of his studying in Egypt was found. A Sinaitic manuscript was written over a text by Hippocrates, but clearly he was simply taking notes and reflections on his lessons from Egyptian sages/teachers. Also see "The medical papyri written and found in Egypt, which was written in 2,500BCE) Some of the editors of Wikipedia articles are racists that tend to ignore the non-EUropean, non-Western(sic), non-White tribes, nations, accomplishments (or they are ignorant of truth and therefore should not be editing articles of this magnitude, at all. History should not be written by ignorant individuals, but by scholars of history and researchers unmoved by their own racism, sexism, and other man-made social constructs that block their ability to think critically. To maintain a reputation as a source of accurate information, Wikipedia owners need to do a better job of weeding out white supremacist, sexist articles and editors! --68.173.189.62 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

See Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures for alternative perspective. Rgdboer (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Early discussion

The part about Gerty Cori under the Women in physiology section is misleading for "discovery of the phosphate-containing form of glucose known as glycogen" suggesting that a glucose molecule attached to a phosphate is glycogen. Also the source for this is TheFreeDictionary.com, could definitely find a better more academic source for this. Arich7 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Should this be reverted? I don't see how a highly technical discussion of urination belongs on such a high-level page. -- Pakaran 02:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not sure where this should go, moving to Talk for the moment. --Lexor 14:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) jnhljhkjhjhlkj

Respiration tracheal stenosis is a respiratory problem that narrows the tracheal lumen that can be congenital or acquired. In congenital tracheal stenosis the trachea is very much narrowed due to tracheal cartilages being smaller than normal and to the absence of posterior menbrane. Thus the trachea becomes very rigid. The sequence of events that leads to this kind of stenosis involves the ulceration of the mucosa and cartilag, inflammatory reactions with the grannulation tissue, fibrous tissue formation, and the contarction of the scar tissue. The capillary perfusion pressure is a possible suspect in mucosal injury. Mucosal ischemia is created by direct contact with a segment of the endotracheal tube or an increase in pressure of the tube cuff. It seems that the initially the laryngotracheal ijury was gormed by the endotracheal tube is ulceration itself. The ulcer healing would involve the regeneration of the epithelium. In this process if the healing does not cover the granulation tissue the groth of this tissue would become larger. The tissue itself has two forms: pseudopapillary and nodular granulation. Many weeks and months that pass, the granulation tissue that was initially vascular, becomes somehat of an avascular scar that just contain a few widely separated blood vessels. In the United States alone, 4-13% adults alone have traceal stenosis and in newborns, about 1-8% occurs after prolonged intubation.

Micturition: Reflex is a activated when the urinary bladder wall is stretched and it results in micturition, which is the elimination of urine from the bladder. The micturition occurs in the spinal cord, specifically in the sacral region. That is modified by the higher centers in the brain the pons and cerebrum. It is due to the presence of urine in the bladder stimulates the stretch receptors, which produces action potentional.

The action potentials are carried by sensory neurons to the sacral segments of the spinal cord through the pelvic nerves. the parasympathetic fibers carry the action potentials to the urinary bladder in the pelvic nerves. This causes the wall of the bladder to contract. In addition, decreased somatic motor action potentials cause the external urinary sphincter, which consists of skeletal muscle, to relax. When the external urinary sphincter is relaxed urine will flow from the urinary bladder when the pressure there is great enough to force urine to flow through the urethra. The micturition reflex normally produces a series of contractions of the urinary bladder.

Action potentials carried by sensory neurons from stretch receptors in the urinary bladder wall also ascend the spinal cord to a micturition center in the pons and to the cerebrum. Descending potentials are sent from these areas of the brain to the sacral region of the spinal cord, where they modify the activity of the micturition reflex in the spinal cord. The micturition reflex, integrated in the spinal cord, predominates in infants.

The desire to urinate normally results from stretch of the urinary bladder wall, but irritation of the urinary bladder or the urethra by bacterial infections or other conditions can also initiate the desire to urinate, even though the urinary bladder may be nearly empty.

<<Physiology has several independent subdivisions>>

This is not true. Physiology studies organisms "as a whole". Even there are many "subdivisions" of physiology, made for in deep study, they are not independent. All physiological areas of study are deeply interconnected.

This entire page is not satisfactory. How is neurophysiology an "independant subdivsion" and yet respiratory physiology a "topic"?PhatRita 29 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Gaya

Not every organism can reproduce. But every organism has a birth and a death date. Why not study the Earth as an organism?

See also the Gaia hypothesis. Indeed, but this is more related to the field of environmentalism.Userafw (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

A large edit to this article [1] appears to be taken from Encyclopædia Britannica [2]. --Ronz 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I removed the information in question on October 24. --Ronz 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chaos theory

I removed the addition of the sentence "The emergence of chaos theory renewed physiology in the 1980s." If this is a true, it needs a reference. I didn't know physiology was having any trouble before the 1980s, and I'm not sure what chaos could do to help with any problems that physiology was having. Human medical physiology is a huge field, comparative physiology is small but seems steady or slow growing in size, plant physiology grew a lot in the 80s and 90s, but that was from portable technology, not from chaos theory. - Enuja (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man

Is this image appropriate for this article? How was Vitruvian Man significant in physiology (as opposed to anatomy or biomechanics)?--Wiki11790 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A agree, it's not a terribly appropriate image; do you have an idea about what would be better? - Enuja (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

the second sentence is ungrammatical and unclear; the sense is not clear. and it seems to me an indefensible statement that galen was the first to use experiments to probe the human body. if you can back this up, then you need a reference. also in the history section, you have failed to mention chinese medicine. you furthermore state that galvanism came to an end with vesalius and harvey, this is an anachronism because galvani lived after these men. so how could his philosophy have come to and end 200 years before he was born. you have provided a refernce for this statement, but in that link there is no reference to galvani at all.

why do you describe avicenna as a muslim physician? you dont describe vesalius as a christian physician. avicenna was a persian, and it is a matter of serious controversy to what extent he was a muslim at all, for example it is recorded of him, that he was inordinately fond of wine. other than that its ok, execpt that it is really short. but seriously, my friend, if it werent for the contribution of physiology to human understanding, you and i would probably have died from an infectious disease, before we were old enough to be having this conversation. dont you think a contribution like that deserves a bit more intellectual rigor and factual accuracy from people writing about it? also, a huge amount of people use wikipedia, do you think its ok to be leading them astray? i dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleobolus (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion DESPERATELY needed

Okay, the coverage of physiology in this article is, in a word, embarrassing. I've never seen a better example of an article where the Croughton-London rule applies. Physiology is a basic topic. Expansion is desperately needed. —Skittleys (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Misusing of refs

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 8 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

"Most aspects of human physiology, and animal experimentation has provided much of the foundation of physiological knowledge." This sentence is really awkward, but I can't piece together what the original author intended to say. Take a shot at fixing it if you can. TennysonXII (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote what I thought the sentence meant. Also re-wrote some of the rest of the Human physiology paragraph. Should it be moved to after the history section? Shanata (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Biological basis of the study of physiology

The first phrase of this paragraph is not entirely clear.

The biological basis of the study of physiology, integration refers to the overlap of many functions of the systems of the human body, as well as its accompanied form. It is achieved through communication which occurs in a variety of ways, both electrical and chemical.

Does anyone know where the first phrase come from? Who affirms that integration is the biological basis of the study of physiology? What's the "accompanied form"?

A perhaps clearer version:

Communication processes across and within organization levels (e.g., tissues, organs and systems) are crucial and central issue in physiology, as they enable the existence of cooperatively exerted functions. This communication may occur in a variety of ways, both electrical and chemical.

Ricardohz (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I notice that you need a citation under the section titled Human Physiology. I have a suggestion.
Your article states, "Much of the foundation of knowledge in human physiology was provided by animal experimentation.[citation needed]" In the Wikipedia article on Leonardo da Vinci, the section titled "Anatomy," states, "Leonardo also studied and drew the anatomy of many other animals as well, dissecting cows, birds, monkeys, bears, and frogs, and comparing in his drawings their anatomical structure with that of humans."
Using that source as a citation would give you an historic source dating back to 1500 or so.
I hope this is useful. --Walter Wright (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is one thing I notice... NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY DARNED SENSE!! I believe all articles should have a simplified version for middle schoolers like me.Isimisi32b (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Physiology History

Attached behind the history section on Physiology are two paragraphs that do not include references or citations, and that certainly have nothing to do with the history of physiology. I assume someone added them erroneously. I realize they must fit somewhere else, so I opted not to delete or tamper with them. --Vize X-- 14:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Women?

Why is this a predominant part of this article? There is no purpose or benefit to writing articles with an obvious and misplaced social justice bias. There is no justification for rewriting history or inappropriately skewing history to suit one politically correct and privileged subculture, ideology or movement. I'm puzzled and affronted by this allowance and the lack of policing. User:gd ([[User talk:]) 21:05, 19 AUG 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.65.11 (talk)

Reorganization

Whilst lots of valuable information had been added to this article about the role of women in physiology, the layout was a little odd, so I have reorganized this and optimized some of the formatting to maximize readability. Some detail, whilst correct, was not relevant to the role of women in physiology but the precise nature of their research - only a brief summary is needed, more detailed explanations will be found within the linked articles. I've limited the list to only Noble Prize winners to ensure actual notability, which has resulted in one woman being removed. The content removed was of good quality, so I've provided a link to it here incase anyone would wish to access it: [3]. Please do not just re-add or restructure the article before discussing this here on this talk page to gain consensus for the changes, which would in my view make this article atypical in its layout and content.

There may well be enough material for a full article on Women in physiology, which would surely be an excellent prospect for a more thorough exposition on this subject.

Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A separate article on Women in physiology would be good. However, the issue is more about human recognition and rights, not really about physiology as such. If a special section on "Woman in physiology" is to be allowed within the physiology article, then for balance should there not be another section about "Men in physiology"? Then I suppose, to keep the whole thing even, there should be sections on "Blacks in physiology", "Whites in physiology", ""Half-tones in physiology", "Homosexuals in physiology", "Straights in physiology", "Theists in physiology", "Atheists in physiology"... The article will become non-ending, and there will be very little room left to mention anything about physiology itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"major events in physiology"

where's mention of the legendary roy & sherrington experiment of 1890? observation and measurement of the phenomenon known as neurovascular coupling isn't on par with those listed? surely it's superior, arguably the crown jewel of physiology experiments (given its longevity) 96.52.168.137 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Week 2

1. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

- This phrase: “In other words, the body's ability to regulate its internal environment” is not cited. I wonder if these are the editors own words, because it sounds exactly like a textbook definition of homeostasis.

-“It should be noted that, William Beaumont was the first American to utilize the practical application of physiology” is not cited, unclear where the editor got this information from -“The Society was founded in 1887 with 28 members” not cited. - “In medicine, a physiologic state is one occurring from normal body function, rather than pathologically, which is centered on the abnormalities that occur in animal diseases, including humans.” This is linked to reference 4, a news website, which is not a reliable source. -“His modification of this theory better equipped doctors to make more precise diagnoses.” This statement is not supported by a citation.

There are quite a few references in this article that are not reliable: -reference 1 is an online etymology dictionary, not a reliable source as it appears to be an independent site and it has an advertisement. -reference 9 is not from a reliable source, it is a website from a professor who doesn’t list any references and it doesn’t appear to be peer-reviewed. -reference 13 is a link that is not working -reference 17 is from an online encyclopedia called “Jewish Women’s Archive”, not a reliable source because they have an interest in making her activities appear more important than they might be. -reference 20 is from a website that is not a reliable source, a “medical-dictionary” website, which has advertisements introducing a conflict of interest between the truth and the interest of the viewer.

The statement about Barbara McClintock “ was rewarded the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of genetic transposition McClintock is the only female recipient who has won an unshared Nobel Prize.” Is paraphrased from the Wikipedia page on her. This is a hard statement to rewrite, but could have had more effort put in.

The statement “Soon thereafter, in 1913, J.S. Haldane proposed that women be allowed to formally join The Physiological Society, which had been founded in 1876 “ has been plagiarized from the site: http://www.medicaltalk.net/t/about-the-physiology-category/1629. This could explain why the author did not include a citation and it is listed as ‘citation needed’ at the end of this sentence.

The remaining references are to textbooks or articles published in pubmed, which are reliable source because they are peer reviewed. Encylopedia Britannica is referenced several times. This is a good resource with a neutral tone that is peer reviewed according to their site and has multiple authors who are experts in their field. --Nhose711 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

-“Major figures in these fields include Knut Schmidt-Nielsen and George Bartholomew.” This phrase should be cited, and include several other “major figures”, it seems a little biased.

-The section “Women in Physiology” should perhaps be included under history, because giving it a separate heading over-represents women and to be fair, one could argue that a “men in physiology” section should be added.

-“It should be noted that” in “It should be noted that William Beaumont was the first American to utilize the practical application of physiology” should be deleted, and instead just stated as a fact.

The bottom of the article indicates or suggests that physiology is a field of study under forensic science because it uses the term “part of a series on Forensic Science.” However, forensic science utilizes portions of physiology as opposed to the other way around.

The article appears to be heavily biased towards the authenticity of the Nobel Prize as the ultimate achievement in physiology. There are other scientific awards that could be discussed and the award of scientific grants to women might be a better statistic to talk about women in the field since that is a general statistic than Nobel Prizes, which are awarded to outliers in fields (exceptional outliers).

In conclusion, the article is overall neutral about the field, however it has a predisposition, i.e. it is leaning towards the emphasis of women in science as a major component in the field, as opposed to the proper field, which should be the history of physiology. It is over-represented by making it a special section.

3. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

-“Given the size of the field” distracted me. I would leave it out and just state that it is divided into several types. The types listed in the article should be somewhat changed. It states that: “it is divided into, among others, animal physiology (including that of humans), plant physiology, cellular physiology, microbial physiology (microbial metabolism), bacterial physiology, and viral physiology.” Perhaps it could say instead that: it is divided into vertebrate physiology which includes animal (mammalian) and human physiology, microbial physiology, which includes bacteria, fungi, viruses and parasites, plant physiology, and cellular physiology.

-The “Women in Physiology” section distracted me, and I don’t think this should be a separate section, instead it should be added to history. It is not part of the definition of physiology.

-These two sentences should be switched: “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is awarded to those who make significant achievements in this discipline by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. In medicine, a physiologic state is one occurring from normal body function, rather than pathologically, which is centered on the abnormalities that occur in animal diseases, including humans.” It would make more sense for the sentence about Nobel Prize to follow the description of a “physiologic state”. On that note, I would expand on the definition of a “physiologic state”, as it applies to humans, and include that it involves the maintenance of homeostasis and link the word ‘homeostasis’ to its wiki site.

- “Most recently, evolutionary physiology has become a distinct sub-discipline.” Probably a sentence that is out of date.

-To lengthen the lead, I would definitely add a sentence and say that physiology is an integrated/ interdisciplinary science overlapping with disciplines such as biology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, anatomy, neuroscience, genetics, medicine, and pharmacology. I would also mention that homeostasis as an integral part of human physiology in the lead.

-The end of the history section should include some of the more recent discoveries/ famous people in physiology, such as Eric Kandel, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2000 for his work related to hippocampal formation of long term memory. No information on the site appears to be outdated except as mentioned above, but the most recent Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine was from 2009. A comprehensive list of Nobel Prizes would be an effective addition to the page.

-The “Human Physiology” section should appear earlier in this article, perhaps after “History” (which would include “Women in Physiology”)

-“Barbara McClintock was rewarded the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of genetic transposition. McClintock is the only female recipient who has won an unshared Nobel Prize.” This information for women in physiology is an important part for the advancement of women in science, but this is included only because the word physiology occurs in the Nobel Prize name. It is not central to the definition or understanding of physiology as a field.

4. How does the Wikipedia article compare to the ways we've discussed this topic in class? Does it align? What information might be incorrect or missing? 

Compared to our introduction to physiology from class, the information in the Wikipedia article does not point to homeostasis as an integral part of human physiology. It also does not discuss the general principles of physiology mentioned at the end of chapter 1 of our textbook, which I think should be discussed before the history. Nhose711 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society

I'll be doing some work as a Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society over the next few months. As part of that, I have added a list of prize winners to the article about the society - there are lots of red links there for folk to work on! Please see also Wikipedia:GLAM/PhySoc and note there any articles you create in response to this initiative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Some Thoughts

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I just wanted to hop on here before I start working on the article to introduce myself, let everyone know what I’ve seen in the article that could use some improvement, and see if anyone has run into the same issues I am seeing and has suggestions. I’m working on this article for a class (it’s true), but I also really want to improve the page for its own sake, and for the sake of its many readers. For such an important page, I’m shocked it’s as underdeveloped as it is.

The first thing I’m encountering as potentially problematic is the brevity of the Human Physiology section. I’d like to introduce a Foundations of Physiology section that Human Physio could be a sub-section of, along with sub-sections for plant physiology and the physiologies of non-human animals.

Another thing I’d love to hear your thoughts on is the placement of the Women in Physiology section. I know there’s been a lot of contention surrounding the inclusion and placement of this information. I think the information may work better if included in a Notable Physiologists section rather than tacked on to the end of the History section as it currently is.

I’m really looking forward to working on this page! Morrieormaury (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that a key issue here is that Physiology is such a broad concept that adding more content in any one particular area might start to make the page unbalanced (and I think that there is already some unbalance present). I wonder whether Outline of physiology might be used to help structure new sections; perhaps even merging the two, as I'm not sure how widely the Outline articles are used. Klbrain (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Blood pressure

Voice 2409:4071:4E1F:A6BE:4BE9:E571:6ABB:B63E (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a rather cryptic edit from 2409:4071:4E1F:A6BE:4BE9:E571:6ABB:B63E; I think that we can call that a test edit ... Klbrain (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)