Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience

The recently created page Event-driven pharmacology appears to be LLM written. While there are no obvious DOI errors, it needs an expert check that the claims in the article are really supported by the sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging this. I haven't yet done an in-depth examination for LLM (and I hope someone else will do it), but I've put it on my watchlist. I'll also put a note at WT:MED, where there are more eyes than here or at the pharmacology project. I consider myself a subject matter expert on this, and what stood out to me right away is that the pagename sounds like some kind of jargonny label for a WP:Coatrack of perfectly good science that otherwise isn't that closely related (basically a pretentious name for medicines that are taken only for a brief period of time). I looked quickly at several of the sources cited early on the page, as sources for the page title, and those sources do not even use that phrase. So my initial reaction is that this page may fail WP:GNG, but that needs to be checked more carefully before going to AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that there are related comments at WT:PHARM. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I was just going to mention the other project. In terms of LLM, both Quillbot & Scaling.ai marked it as 100% LLM, so I think that is clear. However it does not seem to have fake sources so CSD looks inappropriate -- unless the sources dont verify the text. This is way out of my competence, so I will leave that to you, Boghog and others. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I won't mind starting an AfD, but as a WP:BEFORE I'm going to see what other editors say, in case there's stuff I'm not yet aware of. I've put a note now at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I copied the first 3 paragraphs (without ref numbers) into ZeroGPT. It reports the text is 100% AI-generated. Zefr (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

"It was written by LLM" isn't a reason to delete an article. LLM articles are only deleted if they contain unreviewed bad information (e.g., fake sources). If a human uses an LLM and reviews the content to make sure that it's good, then "written by LLM" is irrelevant in terms of our deletion policies.

The relevant question here, therefore, is: Is this a bad article? For example, does the subject actually exist in the real world? Is it possible to clean it up into something appropriate? Do the sources verify the claims, even if they choose a different name for the subject? Synonyms are a fact of life; see also the ArbCom case in which various decorative-tree-shaping folks fought tooth and nail to have their brand name be anointed by Wikipedia as the One True™ Name and their competitors' preferred names relegated to the dustbin of history. We can use sources that prefer different names for the same subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Having recognized a 100%-written entry by LLM, a notification/warning is possible for the user. It states "An edit that you recently made to "xxx" seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words."

Although accurate content is the main goal, using LLM is also a behavioral issue which should be discouraged, as it represents lazy research and editing, non-skeptical acceptance of the content and sources (which may have errors), and additional work for other editors to confirm, rewrite and recite the entry. Zefr (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

In the field of Targeted protein degradation (TPD), of which Chimeric small molecule therapeutics are a subset, the phrase "Event-driven pharmacology" is fairly commonly used (see Google Scholar). Within the neuroscience field, "Event-driven pharmacology" is also used, but far less frequently. In addition to PROTACs, SARDs, SERDs, LYTACs, TPDs also includes Molecular glues. One solution is to broaden the scope of Chimeric small molecule therapeutics, rename it Targeted protein degradation, and redirect "Event-driven pharmacology" to this new article. Boghog (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

That sounds plausible to me, but: Should Wikipedia have any article on the neuroscience version? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I have just created Single-dose long-acting CNS drug stub as a neuroscience version.

The only use of the term "event-driven pharmacology" for a drug that is not a PROTAC is zelquistinel by Syndeio Biosciences (formerly GATE Neurosciences) in corporate presentations.^[1] I cannot find a single mention of "event-driven pharmacology" to describe "Single-dose long-acting CNS drugs" in the peer-reviewed literature.

The first mention of "event-driven pharmacology" for protein degradation was in 2017.^[2] The first mention of "event-driven pharmacology" for "Single-dose long-acting CNS drugs" was in 2023.^[3] So it looks like Syndeio Biosciences borrowed the phrase from the targeted protein degradation field.

Boghog (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and WhatamIdoing: After searching existing neuropharmacology articles, I discovered that Psychoplastogen (also known as Neuroplastogen) and Afterglow are very close matches. Boghog (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that Single-dose long-acting CNS drug and Event-driven pharmacology should probably be merged into the pre-existing Neuroplastogen/Psychoplastogen article. I prefer the Neuroplastogen term since it is more general but Psychoplastogen is more widely used. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Here are my current thoughts:

1. If Event-driven pharmacology is to be made a redirect, the PROD should be withdrawn. I agree that it should not be anything more than a redirect, because the pagename really isn't "a thing". It should be a redirect to Chimeric small molecule therapeutics, not to Psychoplastogen, because that's the more common usage.
2. I like the idea of expanding Chimeric small molecule therapeutics, and then moving it to Targeted protein degradation.
3. I appreciate the good-faith creation of Single-dose long-acting CNS drug, but I don't think it's enough of a unified subject to be a standalone page, so I think it should be merged and redirected to Psychoplastogen.
4. I think it's OK to leave Psychoplastogen where it is, as the more widely-used term, with Neuroplastogen remaining as a redirect to it. (And Afterglow (drug culture) should stay separate.)

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish, for your reply. I agree with everything you wrote. I think the changes are fairly uncontroversial, so I will go ahead and implement. Boghog (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Boghog (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Anything that the two of you agree on is going to be fine with me. Thanks for doing this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve written a draft article about William D. Klipec (Draft:William Klipec) and would appreciate any feedback or early review if possible. Autoshaping (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Autoshaping: and welcome to Wikipedia. I urge you to read the notability guideline at WP:PROF, because I think the page you are drafting may fail our notability requirements. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

More eyes would be helpful at Talk:Neuromodulation (medicine)#Proposed merge of Neurotherapy into Neuromodulation (medicine). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm reaching out to ask that anyone who's interested and able assist me in one of two tasks on the Clouding of consciousness ('Brain fog') page. The first of these would be to provide their opinion on an outstanding RFC (several months old) which has recently reached a position of far greater import given the massive expansion to the article that's been performed in the past several months (a personal project of mine, which I'm finding only continues to become more daunting with each passing day and referencing deep-dive). The second would be to assist in general cleanup, sourcing, and text-body additions based upon the headings and expand tags listed in the article, if only as a general starting/reference point that I can use going forward, at the pace of about a section a day, though I keep finding that there's so much more to be said on nearly every topic I place my focus on.

(I'd happily promise a Barnstar to anyone who could assist (If you don't get one, feel free to leave a message on my talk page)). I'd ask that none of the tags or sections (many of which are bare) be removed unless the requested task be completed, as this is effectively scaffolding for something that I expect to be finished with by the close of the year, and which will thus not be so persistent that it confounds the ability of readers to make proper use of the page; in fact, I'd argue that both the expand tags and bare references provide a critical reference point for readers, given that a great number of references to every topic in relation to brain fog can be found with a quick google search (or a slightly longer PubMed/Elsevier/Oxford/etc. search).

This comment is being posted to the talk page for every relevant WikiProject, so I'm hoping this will get a fair degree of traction. Unfortunately, (if I can get myself out of this procrastination spiral) prior commitments/deadlines mean that I won't be making many additions to the page over the coming weeks. I do ask, though, that you respect the requests made above, not out of any responsibility you have to me, or out of any claim of ownership to the material I've thus far written (trust me, I know the policies), but simply to ensure that the topic is covered to the best degree possible. In any event, I'm very much looking forward to seeing a bit more life on the page (admittedly, it's been a bit of a lonely project over the past several months), and to seeing as many of you there as are willing. When time allows, I'll make a great effort to help out with any requests that are made of me for assistance with other pages/projects, by any of you, as a token of my appreciation. My thanks to all in advance, and best wishes as we approach the New Year. Best - CSGinger14 (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Hi fellow WP:Neuroscience editors, an enthusiastic new editor has made a request regarding improvements to the Nun Study article. They reposted their request in a few places, but not here, and I figured it might be relevant. I'm personally going to try to resolve some of the issues I see with the article, but I would definitely welcome other voices in the discussion, as I do related research and probably have not only conscious but unconscious biases on the matter. Aeffenberger (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the comment at Talk:Neuroscience, and my reaction is that there would be WP:DUE issues. I'm not questioning that the study is significant, but in the overall breadth of neuroscience, it's not that significant. It's probably a lot more due at pages specifically about Alzheimer's. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neuroqueer theory#Split? that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Depression (mood)#Requested move 5 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Cerebral organoid article. DrThneed (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see: Category talk:Molecular neuroscience#Let's move "Category:Molecular neuroscience" into "Category:Basic neuroscience research". and share your opinion about it there.

Ion Soggo (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)