Difference between revisions of "Talk:2011 Group Project 3"

From Embryology
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
==Peer Review==
 
==Peer Review==
 +
 +
'''Group 3'''
 +
 +
*I think the introduction should be a little more concise
 +
*History could work better if all the information was summarised in a table/timeline rather than having paragraphs then a timeline. *Also, I find it a little hard to believe that no findings have been made since the 1970s.
 +
*Epidemiology would probably benefit with subheadings
 +
*Signs and symptoms are nicely set out
 +
*I like that you have added a comparison of other diseases
 +
*Maybe add a few more researches from 2011 rather than 2010 (if possible)
 +
*Overall, quite a good project with some minor adjustments needed
  
 
Group 3:
 
Group 3:

Revision as of 00:21, 28 September 2011

Group 3: User:z3289066 | User:z3289301 | User:z3289829 | User:z3289991

Plagiarism

--Mark Hill 07:35, 30 September 2011 (EST) Currently all students originally assigned to each group are listed as equal authors/contributors to their project. If you have not contributed the content you had originally agreed to, nor participated in the group work process, then you should contact the course coordinator immediately and either discuss your contribution or request removal from the group author list. Remember that all student online contributions are recorded by date, time and the actual contributed content. A similar email reminder will be sent to all current students.

Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism

In particular this example:

"Claiming credit for a proportion of work contributed to a group assessment item that is greater than that actually contributed;"

Academic Misconduct carries penalties. If a student is found guilty of academic misconduct, the penalties include warnings, remedial educative action, being failed in an assignment or excluded from the University for two years.

2011 Projects: Turner Syndrome | DiGeorge Syndrome | Klinefelter's Syndrome | Huntington's Disease | Fragile X Syndrome | Tetralogy of Fallot | Angelman Syndrome | Friedreich's Ataxia | Williams-Beuren Syndrome | Duchenne Muscular Dystrolphy | Cleft Palate and Lip


Peer Review

Group 3

  • I think the introduction should be a little more concise
  • History could work better if all the information was summarised in a table/timeline rather than having paragraphs then a timeline. *Also, I find it a little hard to believe that no findings have been made since the 1970s.
  • Epidemiology would probably benefit with subheadings
  • Signs and symptoms are nicely set out
  • I like that you have added a comparison of other diseases
  • Maybe add a few more researches from 2011 rather than 2010 (if possible)
  • Overall, quite a good project with some minor adjustments needed

Group 3:

  • Whilst I appreciate the introduction and its content, I feel an introduction doesn’t need to be of the same size as some of the other sections of the project. It is to give a mere idea of the condition.
  • History could be broken apart with dot points or bolded dates instead. How about a picture of Harry Klinefelter?
  • Aetiology picture has no link to the article or where it was found, and no copyright notice.
  • Pathogenesis has very little references, surely more would have been used.
  • Images in table are blank and a lot more references would have been used than shown.
  • space out the subheadings so they don’t look disjointed in diagnosis.
  • references have not been listed properly (various links for same article)

--z3291423 18:09, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3: Klinefelter’s Syndrome

  • overall look: inconsistent formatting, imbalance of text and images in some sections, appropriate headings used.
  • introduction: very broad, maybe too much detail?
  • history is well researched; I really like the timeline at the end which summarises the major advancements. But it is very short and ends in the 1970s. It could include current research/advancements.
  • Epidemiology: could benefit from a few subheadings or breaks in the text.
  • Aetiology: I really like the use of external links.
  • Signs and symptoms: works well in a table format but not sure why some cells are coloured and others are not.
  • Other similar defects: interesting addition to the webpage, allows audience to continue research. Also demonstrates extensive knowledge of the syndrome. Great idea!
  • Minor adjustment: just for convenience, glossary terms could be linked

--z3332327 16:14, 27 September 2011 (EST)


Group 3 assessment:

  • Introduction begins in a confusing manner should begin explaining the disorder Klinefelter’s syndrome before explaining the genetic component of meiosis. Where the image was explained though would be more beneficial if the introduction have an image of the founder of the syndrome within this section or within the history heading.
  • History has clear structure with explained information of the progress with relation to the timeline of the syndrome, images would have been more useful within this sub heading to make livelier instead or too much text.
  • Epidemiology detains the male component though could explain female areas related to syndrome as well figure 3 .
  • Pathogenesis is organised with images placed in areas which bring upon confusion where fig 5 and 6 both linking to Non-disjunction, image placement beneath text would be better placement.
  • Signs and symptoms could have a little more elaboration and/or more images
  • Sub heading of diagnosis at birth needs to place either in the centre or down 1 sentenced to become more organised.
  • References should remove any repeats and the links below should be manually added to the references either under another subheading or normally
  • Glossary should be linked throughout, either linking the word to the glossary or even bolding the terms so no confusion for people without any background in the area can understand.

z3332250 23:43, 26 September 2011 (EST)


Group 3 Peer Review

  • Well structured and organised
  • Timeline seems odd that it ends at 1970? If further information cannot be found, try to present this in a different way
  • Figure 2 and 3 could perhaps be a little bigger
  • Should a copyright statement be included in some of the images?
  • Signs and symptoms table is great
  • Some duplication of information throughout page-unnecessary
  • Video link is a nice extra
  • Well balanced text, images, and tables/graphs
  • Overall, a well written page and visually appealing

--Fleur McGregor 18:48, 26 September 2011 (EST)


Comments on Group Project 3

Strengths:

  • Smooth flow between headings and subheadings throughout the page.
  • Timeline included provides a good summary of the block of text above it. Gives a reader a choice to read the summarised timeline or the block of text containing more details.
  • The video links under Aetiology/Non-disjunction is very appropriate.
  • The overall formatting of the page is well-done and neat.

Weaknesses:

  • Introduction is a little bit too detailed. It should clear but concise.
  • There is a lot of duplication of references.
  • Some of the images did not include copyright statement which allows wiki users to re-use the image e.g. Figure 1

Specific corrections:

  • What is aetiology?
  • ”These are anaphase lagging and nondisjunction. The latter of the two, nondisjunction, takes place more often.” Any statistics for this? If there is, it will be good to include it.
  • Some of the signs and symptoms are not referenced.

--Z3389806 07:08, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3

  • Introducton: the beginning is a bit to abrupt, very nice image, otherwise good content
  • History: very detailed information, useful timeline
  • Epdidemiology: fig.3 would look better on the right side, the content is good
  • Aetiology: no copyright information for the image, good use of subheadings.
  • Pathodenesis: again, figure would look better on the right side, it disrupts the flow.
  • Signs and symptoms: good table, the images look a little lost though, so maybe place them on the right edge, “age and intellect” could be bigger.
  • Diagnosis: well done
  • Management: good content, nice flow
  • Similar defects: good content, but the structure could be better, maybe place the content in a table without the dots. Everything that belongs to e.g XO should start at the same hight
  • Research: interesting section, well done
  • Glossary: seems incomplete
  • Make sure to include the copyright notice in all images

--Z3387190 12:13, 25 September 2011 (EST)


Group 3

  • The first thing I noticed is that the project is very text heavy. Also- there are 4 images of mitosis. Is this really necessary? One is enough and you can use the other spaces to put other images in
  • The introduction gives a nice, broad overview of the project. I understand immediately what is going to be said. But is there not an image of a patient to put here to draw the reader in? Maybe its just me that isn’t very excited about images of mitosis sorry.
  • The history section would work better as a list of dates and names rather than a bulk of text
  • Has there been no research since the 1970s? More recent findings need to be added to the history
  • The epidemiology is very interesting- but there is a lot of clinical manifestations here that are described later. There is a double up in information.
  • Signs and symptoms works well in a table- but more images of the condition would make it even better
  • The comparison of other conditions is excellent! Great idea.
  • Your information is there is just needs to be organised a little better and the fact that you have double ups on information and pictures indicates that there may not be any communication in the team- either that or laziness to find a different picture. Look forward to seeing your final project!


Group 3

  • Good over all structure with the use of headings and sub headings. A very interesting syndrome and the page is easy to read.
  • I think the intro could be condensed a little, as it should get straight to the point.
  • I enjoyed reading the history section and good use of table and summary of history.
  • I like figure 1, very nice that it was done by a student!
  • figure 4 Maternal Non-Disjunction.. Is this a student drawn pic or did you use it from somewhere.. a little unclear.
  • I was nice to see sign and symptoms tabulated, which made this section very easy to read and understand. good use of picture here. Could you find anymore relating to the signs and symptoms?
  • I liked the addition of a movie link.
  • The sub heading of diagnosis were very appropriate.
  • Other Similar Defects- very interesting to add this in..
  • Interesting current research: nice that it has been summarised.
  • Make sure your reference list hasn't doubled up.
  • Just for clarity it might be nice to use the same colour table throughout the page.
  • It was good to see some of your pictures correctly labelled.


  • Introduction: Content is good, but it's a bit strange to start the introduction with an explanation about meiosis. Of course you need to include it, but generally one expects a few general sentences about the condition itself first, and then an explanation how problems in meiosis lead to it. Including a figure is good, but maybe put this one under the genetics section, and have a picture of somebody affected by the syndrome here instead?
  • History: It is one very long text, followed by a summary table under timeline. Maybe come up with a mix of the two, and make it one section? Would make keeping an overview easier. Keep the table, but put all the longer explanations you've written out under history into the table, next to the corresponding date? Content is good.
  • Epidemiology: Good, interesting content. The figures nicely break down the text. Well done!
  • Aetiology: Slight contradiction here - previously prevalance was said to be 1 in 500, now 1 in 1000? Also, you refer to Figure 1 which is all the way on top of the page - it would be nice to keep it closer to the text, in the relevant section itself. You might want to mention that MI = meiosis I and MII = meiosis II. I was also slightly surprised that you used the word "synapse" when talking about what happens between the homologous chromosomes - I might just never have come across it before (though I have taken quite a few genetics classes), but maybe double-check that? As far as I know it's called crossing over - that's what forms the chiasmata. In general, your whole explanation is very incomplete, you might wanna revise that. I know what you're trying to get at, but I don't think it's very clear for someone who doesn't have a genetics background. Also, I have a majour problem with Figure 4 - the way you illustrate it, I first thought you were showing two different chromosomes, say chromosome 1 & 2, of which there are two copies present each. Cause this is how it is pictured most of the time. Your explanation under the figure made me realise that it wasn't the case, but a) you need to improve that legend and explain more, and b) I'd strongly suggest you modify your figure so that the chromosomes look more like "X"ses - that'll make it much easier to understand that you're talking about one chromosome type, and are showing the sister chromatids and not separate chromosomes. I hope this makes sense?

The genetics part is good though.

  • Pathogenesis: Why does this section contain the subsection nondysjunction again? Nice, brief explanation of anaphase lagging. The nondysjunction section, unsurprisingly, mainly repeats what has already been said before. Your figures need a legend and more explanations. What are the different colours supposed to depict? Maternal vs paternal chromosomes? You need to point out that it's the size difference that shows chrom 1 vs chrom 2. Cause I thought first the colours mean homologous chromosomes, which then wouldn't be right cause it's the homologous chromosomes that align etc. Also, I'd suggest not talking about cells having three chromosomes instead of two, cause in reality, cells have so many more pairs of chromosomes than 2, instead maybe just say, 1 cell contains both of the homologous chromosomes instead of just one at the end of MI. You seem to be depicting a recombination event in Figure 6 - why? Does it have any relevance to this part? There's no mention of it in the text. Sorry this sounds terribly critical - good effort though!
  • Signs & Symptoms: Maybe explain more, and not just include a list with bullet points?
  • Diagnosis: Put the "featured imagine" right next to where it is mentionned? Otherwise seems fine to me.
  • Management: Looks good.
  • Similar Defects: Maybe rename it Syndromes instead of Defects? I was confused for a second that you were going to talk about further defects that affect KS patients, instead of similar diseases. Otherwise, looking good.
  • Current research: Nice long explanations of the research, though there surely are more than 3 current papers about this out there?
  • Glossary: How do we know which words from the sections can be found in the glossary? More terms could also be included.
  • References: Needs fixing. One and the same reference appears multiple times in the list.


Peer Assessment: Group Project 3

  • The introduction is informative, however I think that the small paragraphs at the end detract from the section as a whole. It would be better to integrate these more so that they flow on from the previous text.
  • The history section provides both detailed information and a timeline, which makes the historical stages easy to comprehend and refer back to.
  • Is the image in the section on aetiology drawn by a student? If not, then copyright information and referencing needs to be included.
  • In the section on diagnostic procedures, the image could be placed on the right for ease of reading.
  • The figure in the signs and symptoms section and the figures in the epidemiology section are too small.
  • Using colour borders in the signs and symptoms table would make it a bit clearer.
  • The links to animations and a movie are great uses of additional material.
  • Under the information in some of the images you have uploaded, you still need to add {{Template:2011 Student Image}}.
  • The references should not be duplicated and can instead be linked together using the 'multiple instances on a page' editing guidelines: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=References#Multiple_Instances_on_Page.

--z3217345 13:28, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3 Assessment

  • The Meiotic Non-disjunction jpg doesn’t have the proper citing or information about future referencing abilities.
  • In the history section, I like how the occurances are both described in detail and set forth in an easy to read table format. Very organized.
  • In the Aetiology section, where is the referencing for the Non-disjunction videos? Is video copyrighted?
  • The Aetiology section and Pathogenesis sections seem to contain almost identical information. Are both necessary, or could they be combined/ one deleted?
  • If you decide to keep the Non-disjunction videos, are the pictures in the Pathogenesis section necessary? Or do they just become redundant?
  • In the Epidemiology section, both pictures need to be enlarged; they are so small I can’t make a distinction as to what’s on them.
  • Signs and Symptoms- This section overall looks very good as far as information goes. The only thing I would suggest is to separate the different age sections a little bit more; their symptoms look to be running together from group to group. Also, try increasing the picture sizes, as they (especially the first one) is difficult to read.
  • Again, for the video under Karyotyping, where is the referencing and copyright information on this?
  • Action of Amoratase picture- This still needs to have the disclosure statement reguarding re-use and copyright guidelines. Also needs a descriptor sentence below the picture.
  • Glossary- Shouldn’t there be references for these definitions?
  • Both the Similar Defects and Research sections seem decent. Only suggestions:

-Similar defects chart: Try bigger pictures and sentences of less length.

-Research- Try adding a picture to the section to make it more aesthetically appealing

  • Some of the references are repetitive. Make sure to fix this so they all link to a single reference instead of numerous ones of the same resource.

--Ashley Smith 14:00, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Discussion


Hey i have been looking for a profile pic for some time and none have come up. So prob better if you don't look for it because I am afraid that you will waste time. Nice! birthday cake :) I should do that for my dad's bday which is coming up. Anyways see you tomorrow --Dona Cho 23:55, 21 September 2011 (EST)


Hey Dona, thats a good idea! i like all the pics that you have added, and pathogenesis looks good! I just baked my dad a birthday cake and planning on doing some work on this now. So i will probably be up for a while. I am also looking for pics of H. Klinefelter. Good work!--Souti Khalil 21:12, 21 September 2011 (EST)


I am looking for a profile picture of Mr Klinefelter. I think it will be good to put one in in the introduction section. I am having trouble finding any - but you do come across one pls put one up -I think it will look great! --Dona Cho 20:19, 21 September 2011 (EST)


Guys I thought that it would look good if all the images were order 'figure 1, figure2...' Just so that it all looks uniform Hope your ok with it but if you don't like it you can just change it back.

--Dona Cho 17:52, 21 September 2011 (EST) :)


That looks interesting, but I'm not really up to adding any of that tonight. Feel free to add whatever you like. --Elisabeth Karsten 22:57, 14 September 2011 (EST)


Hi guys ;)

I was just reading some stuff - found some interesting info related to management (I think it is liz?)

The part of the review is as follows:

'Decreased energy and libido, which are associated with postpubertal testosterone deficit, improve with hormone therapy and often are accompanied by improved confidence and sense of well-being.Androgen therapy should be started when there is direct laboratory evidence of a testosterone deficit or when hypergonadotrophism, which suggests such a deficit, is present. This may occur by the time the patient begins middle school...

Because gynecomastia predisposes men to breast cancer—the frequency of breast cancer is 20 to 50 times greater than in men who do not have Klinefelter syndrome1,2—monthly breast self-examination should be encouraged. If necessary for cosmetic reasons, gynecomastia may be treated surgically.'

The review also mentioned something about 'cryopreservation' so that the precious sperm can be stored and used for later IVF.

If the above sound interesting, it might be good reading the review article (particularly the management section. Follow the link below for the review.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1201/p2259.pdf

ps. I dont think I will be sleeping much tonight!!

--Dona Cho 22:32, 14 September 2011 (EST)


I don't think we can use those pictures, unfortunately. Safest to stick with papers and hand-drawn I think. The timeline looks really really good. If anything, I would be inclined to put a bit less info in the main bit of history and focus on that time line. I think it's a nice visual respresentation of the information. --Elisabeth Karsten 21:17, 14 September 2011 (EST)


I found this website which has alot of picture's of KS, and there are only a few copyright statements, can we use them? [1]

Haha, I just saw them! thanks for that! I just edited the history and the timeline. Is the information in the timeline just repetitive of what i have written, should i just remove it? --Souti Khalil 20:09, 14 September 2011 (EST)


It did end up happy in the end lol. Yeh they look really good. We're allowed to add links to our page, so I think that'd be best. I'll put those on now. Thanks! --Elisabeth Karsten 18:46, 14 September 2011 (EST)

Thanks for fixing up the table in signs and symptoms, it looks great!

That video was mean, i was eating when i watched it and i felt so sorry for the little boy, i couldnt watch the rest. :(

If you think we need an animation i found these two websites, but i have no idea of how we would put them on to our page.

[[2]] [[3]] --Souti Khalil 18:09, 14 September 2011 (EST)


That video is so funny! I was laughing to the point of tears while watching this! I don't think Dr. Hill would be too happy if we added the video to our webpage though. Great job Liz once again with the editing. Keep up the good work!--Robert Klein 15:22, 14 September 2011 (EST)


Hey everyone, I just uploaded our 1 Wikipedia image. It's the karyotype of Klinefelter's syndrome. If anyone founds anything better on Wiki, just make sure you say something and take that one off. --Elisabeth Karsten 09:52, 14 September 2011 (EST)

So I found this video, it's super cute and lame. But I think it's a nice representation? Not sure how applicable it is though... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q2JxMDaNys --Elisabeth Karsten 10:08, 14 September 2011 (EST)


Signs and Symptoms by Age Group.PNG

Thanks Liz! I really loved the intro and the picture that you created! Maybe we don’t have to remove it, however I will also be on the lookout for a picture which may better suit the introduction. In the meantime, I was thinking maybe we should order the subsections better, for example; Introduction, History, Epidemiology, Aetiology, Pathogenesis, Signs and symptoms, diagnosis, management, other similar defects and then current research. I just think we should explain the cause and pathogenesis of the disease before the signs and symptoms and diagnosis.

Lastly, I found a table on a website and have created a similar one on signs and symptoms. I'll just upload it here, and we can decide if we want to use it.


That is all. --Souti Khalil 13:13, 12 September 2011 (EST)


That table looks really really good, though it could be easier if we upload it like the other table I put up, as opposed to a picture. I'm happy to do that if you like. And yeh that order looks good too, I'll change it now and if anyone disagrees they can change it back. --Elisabeth Karsten 22:29, 12 September 2011 (EST)


Our page is starting to looking really good!! I just fixed up the aetiology, it may need more work to be done though. Liz the picture i made, is really similar to the one you have in the introduction, is it too much?? Sorry about the delay in uploading it. --Souti Khalil 00:50, 12 September 2011 (EST)

That's fine, I kind of expected that. You use it since it fits in with your topic and I'll do another one for the intro. Aetiology looks really good, nice work!

--Elisabeth Karsten 09:07, 12 September 2011 (EST)


Hey Liz, Great job with the editing! It looks really good. I will keep on the lookout for gathering more information. --Robert Klein 20:31, 11 September 2011 (EST)


Hey everyone, I've just fiddled with the formatting of the page a bit. If you don't like it, of course feel free to change. I also changed the formatting of the table t make it a bit clearer to read, if you preferred the old one though I've saved a copy of it so just let me know. Just looking at the page, some things in epidemiology I think would fit a bit better in signs and symptoms; and eitiology and pathogenesis are a little repetive of each other which I guess we should of expected. But we'll be able to discuss it properly on this coming thursday.

--Elisabeth Karsten 20:24, 11 September 2011 (EST)


To help out a bit, I found some links to articles that are 'Open Access'. This should save time for you guys: http://www.springerlink.com/content/g68408vq74752421/fulltext.pdf http://psy.hull.ac.uk/Staff/t.jellema/VantWout_PlosONE.pdf http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2011_BCetal_Plos%20biology_unsolvedmystery.pdf http://www.ojrd.com/content/pdf/1750-1172-5-15.pdf http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020292 http://www.hogrefe.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Wetenschappelijk_onderzoek/Bruining_et_al_-_Dissecting_clinical_heterogeneity_of_ASD_through_genotypes.pdf http://www.ijponline.net/content/36/1/36

Hope this helps!--Robert Klein 12:23, 9 September 2011 (EST)

Looks good, thanks rob.

--Elisabeth Karsten 20:24, 11 September 2011 (EST)



I had to remove the photo from 'signs and symptoms so that I can confirm it's copyright restrictions. Sorry about that. --Robert Klein 07:44, 9 September 2011 (EST)


I edited the Epidemiology and fixed it up as best I could. As well, I found and added a picture to the signs and symptoms section to make it a little clearer. I still seem to be having difficulties with formatting. If anyone comes across charts that I can use for Epidemiology, that would be much appreciated. I still can't find anything that I can use. I will fix up the 'other similar defects' section and have it ready very soon. --Robert Klein 06:39, 9 September 2011 (EST)



Hey guys, sorry I've been a bit MIA recently. But yeh I agree totally, I was planning to finish off the intro once everything else is finished, but for the moment I'll make sure I'll finish off my other sections. And yeh you're ideas re:tables and diagrams sounds great. I'll have a go at drawing a couple on paint as well --Elisabeth Karsten 21:39, 8 September 2011 (EST)


Good idea Souti! As well as that, I will retype my sections and try and fix them according to what Dr.Hill wishes. Maybe for treatments, you could speak about the drugs used to manage the condition. We do need to edit the other sections and add much more content and diagrams. Perhaps a few handrawn diagrams wouldn't go astray?--Robert Klein 18:40, 8 September 2011 (EST)



Hey guys, I noticed earlier today that Mark Hill has put comments on our page that we need to change and improve. So i'm going to take out 'case study', and replace it with 'treatments'. What do you guys think? Make sure you have a look at what he has said. --Souti Khalil 17:44, 8 September 2011 (EST)


Rob, 'Other Similar Defects' is looking great! I am committing the next couple of hours to Klinefelter's syndrome. Do you guys think we could elaborate a bit more in the introduction, just to give a larger scope of our disease?

--Souti Khalil 11:48, 8 September 2011 (EST)




I added images to 'Other Similar Defects'--Robert Klein 07:55, 7 September 2011 (EST)




I have constructed a table for Other similar defects! I think that it should be alright, however there may not be enough info so the conditions may not properly be explained. We are still waiting on a table for signs and symptoms as well as a diagram for pathogenesis--Robert Klein 10:01, 6 September 2011 (EST)




What we should do is add a table to 'similar defects', a diagram for pathogenesis, a and a table for signs and symptoms--Robert Klein 12:49, 1 September 2011 (EST)




Glossary, Epidemiology and Similar defects have all been added. Let me know if anything else needs to be done!--Robert Klein 06:04, 1 September 2011 (EST)



Alright Everyone, For the different genotypes dotpoint, I will cover that when I complete the section to do with 'similar defects'. I have fixed up the referencing system. --Robert Klein 13:53, 27 August 2011 (EST)



Hey guys, I have included a list of things that Mark Hill emphasised in regards to our group project in the lab today;

- Different genotypes

- Animal models

- Review articles

- Importance of how the disease comes about (pathogenesis).

So, by next Thursday our main page should have plenty of content under each subheading.  --Souti Khalil 14:14, 25 August 2011 (EST)



Hey Guys, I have added a discussion tab for any enquires and updates on the progress of our assessment, as well as a referencing tab (or whatever they are actually called) at the bottom of the page. So for each section, if anyone finds relevant articles/images etc. they can place it there. Oh, and please remember to add new content to the top. --Souti Khalil 00:53, 18 August 2011 (EST)



Hey Guys, Sorry to be a bother. I am having trouble referemcing properly in the Wiki format, as what can be seen in my Epidemiology piece and also my messing up of the reference list. Would one of you mind showing me how to fix this problem? Thanks so much and I will have the piece on 'other similar defects' prepared by Saturday. The glossary will be uploaded on Monday. --Robert Klein 05:40, 18 August 2011 (EST)



Referencing PMID is the reference number that you need

without the ':' will act as an link to the article --Dona Cho 12:51, 25 August 2011 (EST)

References

If you find any good papers relating to someone elses topic, you can put them under these subheadings to help out.


Hey guys! this is a publication which seem to be pretty good!!

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/klinefelter.cfm --Dona Cho 12:54, 25 August 2011 (EST)


Description/Introduction

History

Natural history of seminiferous tubule degeneration in Klinefelter syndrome[1]

Signs and Symptoms

Epidemiology

Abramsky L, Chapple J.47, XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) and 47,XYY: estimated rates of and indication for postnatal diagnosis with implications for prenatal counselling. Prenat Diagn. 1997;17:363–368.

Bojesen A, Juul S, Gravholt CH.Prenatal and postnatal prevalence of Klinefelter syndrome: anational registry study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88:622–626

Klinefelter Syndrome

Diagnosis

Hey guys, it's Dona. I put my name down for this section. I will try to get mine done by the end of this week. :)

--Dona Cho 17:23, 24 August 2011 (EST)

Treatment

Etiology

Pathogenesis

Case Study

Similar Defects

Current Research

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7446531 Check this out!!--Robert Klein 05:03, 1 September 2011 (EST)

[2]

References

  1. <pubmed>16172111</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>21342258</pubmed>

Pictures

Magnetic Resonance of Head MRI from patient with Down Syndrome and Klinefelter's Syndrome


--Souti Khalil 23:57, 17 August 2011 (EST)


Klinefelter's Syndrome

--Elisabeth Karsten 23:31, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Klinefelter's Syndrome patient testicular sample

--Robert Klein 10:17, 16 August 2011 (EST)

Facial dysmorphic features in a child with double aneuploidy—Down syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome

--Dona Cho 20:35, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Topic Choice

Hey guys, so after having a look at that list I quite like the sound of

  • Anencephaly or
  • Klinefelter's syndrome

There's loads of resources for Klinefelter's syndrome, but I think Anencephaly sounds really interesting. It's a type of neural tube defect, so we may even be able to do that as a topic - neural tube defects (it's on the list as well). Just let us know what you think, thanks guys!

I've just attached a review for each

Klinefelter Syndrome

Neural Tube Defects or Anencephaly

--z3289066 09:32, 6 August 2011 (EST)

Hey Everyone, I am leaning towards Klinefelter syndrome as it seemed interesting to learn about. I found a couple of articles on the internet which explore more the epidemiology of the condition amongst the population. Liz, I read through your artiles and they were quite interesting in the way that they explored the genetics behind the condition. We will be able to perhaps link these in with the epidemiology to make our argument more convincing.

Below is a review article:

[4]

The Research Article:

[5]

Both articles explore more the epidemiology of klinefelter's syndrome as I felt that it would be interesting to look at its prevalence, and frequency of distribution within a population. The first review article that I hasve linked to explores the frequency of Klinefelter's syndrome in a population along with various other genetic anomalies.

--z3289991 07:02, 9 August 2011 (EST)


Yeh that sounds good to me, if anyone has any objections just let us know. We can figure out exactly what we want in the page on thursday, but yeh should def's talk about the epidemiology.

--z3289066 14:53, 9 August 2011 (EST)

Hey guys!

I think that Klinefelter's syndrome is definitely an interesting disease and it has lots of resources. I think we still need a plan B though, a few other diseases which I thought were really interesting are; - Thalassaemia - Anencephaly (good pick Liz!) - Spina Bifida I found a really good review article on Klinefelter’s syndrome, although it’s pretty dated. [6] [7]

I shall see you all thursday!

--z3289829 22:15, 9 August 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, this is dona - I guess I am the last one to write on the board (sorry!)

I personally like the topic; neural tube defects. Reasons are 1. there is so much information because it is an umbrella term that includes many conditions like spina bifida and anencephaly and 2. we will be learning the developing of the neural tube next week in lecture - so it will not be difficult to understand the etiology of neural tube defects

Here are the links:

review article [8]

research article [9]

p.s Hey could everyone identify themself by writing their name before writing on this discussion forum, that way people know whose talking. (please)

--Z3289301 17:23, 10 August 2011 (EST)


Sections

  • Description/Introduction - Liz
  • History - Souti
  • Signs and Symptoms - Dona
  • Epidemiology - Rob
  • Treatment - Liz
  • Eitology - Souti
  • Pathogenesis - Dona
  • Similar defects - Rob

I was thinking it'd be good to also do a topic on recent research, I'm happy to do that one, and should also do a glossary. So we should have someone finalise that, but it'd be really helpful if everyone could just add words in they think would be good as you go. Does anyone want to volunteer for editing that? Just put your name in the spot below so everyone knows.

  • Recent research - Liz
  • Glossary - Rob
  • Diagnosis - Dona
  • Case Study - Souti

--Elisabeth Karsten 12:15, 13 August 2011 (EST)



Hey Guys, I have uploaded an image to the Epidemiology section of the Group webpage, however it appears to have distorted the whole webpage in that all the other categories below epidemiology have been pushed to the side. Also, I am having trouble trying to enlarge the image. Do you know how I can fix this problem? The table was referenced appropriately. Cheers

--z3289991 10:14, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Hey, yeh that should be fine for the moment, don't worry too much about the formatting. You can fix it, but it'll be easier to do once there's text there too move around it. There should be a page explaining all the details about picture formatting, but I can't qutie remember how to do it off the top of my head. Is that the size of the original image? Because that could be part of the problem.

--Elisabeth Karsten 12:09, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Oh I've just realised what's happened, see how you've put the file name then "thumb"? The default for thumb is to make it slightly smaller and move to the right where it will wrap around whatever text is there. You can try [File name|thumb|left|name] if you want it on the left, or else instead of 'left' you can say 'center'. But it's gotta be 'center', not 'centre' (I think). Or else you don't have to use thumb at all, and just leave it out completely.

Hope this helps.

--Elisabeth Karsten 14:02, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Thanks Liz, You know what? I will add some text during next week and then play around with the formatting. You are right in your first comment, because that way I can format the picture and text properly. Thanks so much for your help though. --Robert Klein 15:21, 13 August 2011 (EST)



Peer Assessments

  • Great amount of depth, you have covered each subheading quite well
  • It was great to see a comparison to other similar defects
  • Non-disjunction is discussed twice, can it be summarised into just the one section?
  • In the signs and symptoms section, the images seem to be arranged in a disorderly fashion, maybe place them elsewhere. Also your image comparing age and intellect is extremely small. The sizing of a larger majority of your photos needs to b adjusted
  • You’re referencing needs to be tidied up; there are multiple entries from the same source that tends to clutter your reference section.
  • There were only two examples of management strategies, are there anymore out there? Maybe you could do a comparisons table for this section

--z3332629 15:23, 22 September 2011 (EST)