A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
lifestyle
i propose we move the section somewhere else, this article is about drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is little relevance here.Halogenated (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Nootropics and definition
Nootropics are claimed to increase cognition etc because the jury is still out on the matter. Just because the term defines drugs that ARE cognitive enhancers, it doesn;t mean that the drugs that are currently considered nootropics are in fact proven to do so. Prefacing with the words "are claimed" merely states that the drugs are not definitely proven to do what they are alleged to do, and certainly not weasel words. If you have scientifically proven definitive evidence to the contrary from double-blind studies conducted on a statistically significant number of particiants, please, post it. Most evidence so far is encouraging, but hardly overwhelming. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- No where will you find a definition that says nootropics are drugs that are "claimed" (by whom?) to improve cognition. It furthermore wouldn't make sense to say "So and so claims drug X is a nootropic," since that would just mean "so and so claims drug X is claimed to improve cognition." Nootropics are drugs that improve cognition in some way. "The jury is out" on whether this or that drug is, in fact, a nootropic (maybe none are!). But more to the point of Wikipedia policy, using "claimed to be ___________" without attribution really is weasel wording. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- By the same token that I cannot state a Yeti is an extant giant ape, nootropics cannot be stated as drugs that enhance cognition. Perhaps the sentence could be revised to address this better. I'm not a big fan of the term "are claimed" either. Halogenated (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- How does this version work for you? Halogenated (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- We're talking about definitions here, not merely any true or false sentence about a subject. You would never see "extant giant ape" in a definition of "Yeti." Quite simply, a nootropic is type of drug that enhances cognition in the same way that an antidepressant is a drug that mitigates symptoms of depression. What can be disputed or defended with a source is whether drug X is, in fact, a functioning nootropic or antidepressant. But all this seems settled since someone came along with a sourced definition. It's hard to argue with that without a competing source. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- How does this version work for you? Halogenated (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me.Halogenated (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Resources relevant to the page
I'm going to list some resources here, and we can discuss their merits or lack thereof. Or people can go ahead and use them to cite claims in the article. I just cited Huperzine A with a Cochrane review (PMID 18425924). PubMed lists all the below as reviews.
- Girugea's articles.
- Wired articles: Give Your Intellect a Boost — Just Say Yes to Doing the Right Drugs! and Really Smart Drugs
- PMC. The Psychopharmacology of Herbal Medicine: Plant Drugs That Alter Mind, Brain and Behavior
- PMC. Cognitive dysfunctions in schizophrenia: potential benefits of cholinesterase inhibitor adjunctive therapy
- PMC. Efficacy and safety of galantamine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: multicentre randomised controlled trial
- PMC. Drugs for Alzheimer disease. Fairly critical review.
- PMC. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=122286&rendertype=abstract.
- PMC Drugs for Alzheimer's disease 2
- PMC Effect of the herbal extract combination Panax quinquefolium and Ginkgo biloba on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a pilot study.
- PMID 11744068 Yohimbine: a clinical review. No access; has a section on memory.
- PMID 16848706 Choline: critical role during fetal development and dietary requirements in adults. (free access)
- PMID 16989905 Lipoic acid as a novel treatment for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. (no access)
- PMID 17171187 Citicoline: pharmacological and clinical review, 2006 update. (no access)
- PMID 18046877 Citicoline (Cognizin) in the treatment of cognitive impairment. (no access)
- PMID 18198970 The use of cognitive enhancers in behavioral disturbances of Alzheimer's disease. (no access)
- PMID 17908041 East meets West in the search for Alzheimer's therapeutics - novel dimeric inhibitors from tacrine and huperzine A. (no access)
- PMID 16437532 Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease. (no access, Cochrane)
- PMID 17960354 (no access, German)
- PMID 17979717 Recent developments in cholinesterases inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease treatment. (no access? my library lies to me)
- PMID 18078044 (Russian, specifically mentions nootropics)
- PMID 18078043 (Russian again)
- PMID 18050502 Acetylcholine. (no access)
- PMID 18033952 A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of piracetam and piracetam-like compounds in experimental stroke. (no access)
- PMID 17979717 Recent developments in cholinesterases inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease treatment. (no access? library lies again...)
Pretty long list, I know. Hopefully it doesn't bother anyone; I'll be weeding them out as I use them. Some of these are likely unusable. I found one interesting study but I lost it in the shuffle, which is why I started taking notes (also, maybe we can help each other get access to some of these). I think a paper suggested that phosphatidylcholine was not really effective. Please keep replies to this section without much substance (e.g. referenced scientific input) to a minimum. I also suggest that we stay alert for negative effects from these drugs, since there is a strong incentive for people to use them. II | (t - c) 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
One Giant Mess
There is almost no cohesion to the article whatsoever - it exists as a series of lists and titles. Either someone needs to write a proper article for the topic, or I will chop it down into a stub article containing the handful components that actually have citations or the appearance of legitimacy. Halogenated (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Err -- while you're at it, could you try to keep the mess of the talk page down? You've just started a new section when the above two sections state nearly the exact same thing. It is these habits of repetition and not reading which make messes. I may go through this Talk page and see if there are any points worth noting before archiving. Research carefully before you cut, please, as most of these items are legitimately nootropic even if they haven't been cited. ImpIn | (t - c) 07:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to try to write a proper article on this. I don't think the current approach makes sense. I'd prefer to categorize not by function e.g. "grows nerve cells" but by some more straightforward category, i.e. synthetic drugs, nutrients (vitamins amino acids), endogenous substances, herbs, ect. Or perhaps by function, but less so than they are currently...anyway, it will take some time. Anyway, I'm gonna be moving things around substantially, and cutting some, so stop me if you feel like I'm doing something bad. II | (t - c) 08:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
recent article in nature
Sahakian, B.; Morein-Zamir, S. (2007). "Professor's little helper". Nature. 450 (7173): 1157–1159. doi:10.1038/4501157a. PMID 18097378. --Doc James (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Ethics
This article definitely needs a section on ethics.--Doc James (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Review
Have found a really good review about this topic from 2007. I have access if anyone is interested.
Malik R, Sangwan A, Saihgal R, Jindal DP, Piplani P (2007). "Towards better brain management: nootropics". Curr. Med. Chem. 14 (2): 123–31. PMID 17266573.{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
--Doc James (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd love to see it. Could you send it to imperfectlyinformed@gmail.com?
Possible nootropics
Just created this for you guys - go at it. To use this section, just post the link to the article (on wikipedia or external) you think is a nootropic, and then leave it for someone to check and make a reply.
Layout:
Is this article a nootropic?
OR
I read http://www.newswebsite.com/sciencearticle.html is it important?
Meiguswtf (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
For that one guy: Hormone section -> Orexin - Significant wakefullness promoter Added by User:Meiguswtf
---
http://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Bupropion
This antidepressant has similiar effects as stimulants.. could this be a nootropic too?
- The article doesn't describe it as a nootropic, nor are there terribly many Google hits so describing it. Perhaps best to limit the list to drugs described in print as nootropics, since there's no canonical definition or authority on the category. --Gwern (contribs) 15:26 21 September 2009 (GMT)
giant edit
I recently did a massive edit. I will be watching in case someone reverts it. If you are managing to read this, good, you have taken the basic step to ensure quality of this article (if you are one of those people). If not, well, you won't heed this. Here is my list of demands:
1. if you think something is a nootropic but you don't know (if you really can't tell where it should go or what it does) put it in the "Possible Nootropics" section, and I or someone will try to fit it in somewhere and say wether or not it is/isn't.
2. If you feel you are competent to insert nootropics, take this basic layout: section in which it should go:
link to article - main basic claim
^-- note there are no quotes, and no multiple sentences
3. By main basic claim, there are basic words like anxiolytic that should be used. ALWAYS when adding something, determine if the effect is *claimed* or if it's been proven, or implied by pharmacological study! I would use no word if it has been proven to be a clinical method of action, and if not, use "suspected to", "displays", "shows" etc for clinically demonstrated or clinically inferred activities and "purported to", "claims to" for most applications involving herbs and things which have not been proven, but have been at minimum, documented as effects and verified. If there is no study, it does not belong here!
4. I will remove any substance added to this list that does not have a reference or does not have a reference on it's respective page demonstrating efficacy! Period! Always try http://scholar.google.com/ to find a study with at minimum, claims in its abstract showing efficacy and http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi? to get the references and labelling right.
5. For some purported herbal or drug things, I may delete them if I can't see their data and/or are from someplace suspicious. (like a study from the Herbal Efficacy Alliance llc. (or "HEAL") shows "herbs" are better than "drugs", but the link does not show any numbers, claim anything specific, have any abstract at all, was not talked about in any publically available webpage or arhived tv/printed media, and is only available at the low low cost of $159.99 for the study info!)
Sorry to be so demanding, but I take this stuff very seriously. I'm not claiming ownership of this page, but if people are willing to follow these guidelines, this page will be a lot more useful and clean.
Meiguswtf (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll also mention that condition related claims, like a drug improves function in old people, should only warrant mention if the pharmacology was shown to have an effect independent of specific condition. Something I can think of is melatonin. Although it's apperantly necessary for neurological development of major systems, once past the age of like 10 it shows no significant cognition modifying abilities other than entraining sleep patterns, so therefore, I would NOT put it on this page and claim it "grows cells in a part of the brain" when it doesn't grow cell there after like age 10. Meiguswtf (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Some Scientists Recommend...
I bought that cited article and read it. It is not the view of the authors that people should do anything. It is just about the way in which we deal with the people that use, and want to use these drugs/methods. The article deals with some of the ethical and strategic issues, but it doesn't recomment that anyone ingest anything for any reason. Anyone mind taking this out? It's really incorrect and misleading. 173.24.227.245 (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I don't know who put it in, but the reference has expired. II | (t - c) 16:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think it was I who added it and it is what the article said. Will try to find it again. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7223/full/456702a.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Here it is. A commentary supporting the use of cognitive enhancers by 7 scientists / professors. http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2009/marapr/farm/news/greely.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- They do say that they can be used ethically, but I'm not sure they're saying that they should be used more. They're saying that cognitive enhancers should not be opposed on principle. Greely says:
II | (t - c) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)One of the things that has troubled me most about the reaction is that so many people have read that article as saying, “Let’s freely use Adderall and Ritalin.” That’s not our goal, that’s not our position, that’s not what we want.
- They do say that they can be used ethically, but I'm not sure they're saying that they should be used more. They're saying that cognitive enhancers should not be opposed on principle. Greely says:
Yes what he is saying is that they can be used ethically for cognitive enhancement. Which is layments terms for saying it is okay to use them. Maybe we should change it to "A few scientist fell that it is ethical to use stimulants for cognitive enhancement" A little less strong than recommend --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't blame you for citing it as recommend. Perhaps switching the word recommend for defend would summarize what they're saying? II | (t - c) 16:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes defend would be fine if you want to add it back in. Here is another interesting paper from 2004: http://www.nature.com.cyber.usask.ca/nrn/journal/v5/n5/full/nrn1390.html --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative
Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších
podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky
použitia.
www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk