Talk:Julia Newton

Reduce the number of notable studies and give more information on those selected? As opposed to listing everything recent?

Good question! - It's the same with Dr. Leonard Jason. His name is on several studies a year. I was thinking that maybe we list the most recent studies and hyperlink to another page that can list the additional studies for that researcher.

Usually the heading for the section is "Notable studies" but it's hard to tell what is truly "notable." Sometimes what is notable changes with time. What if the section heading is changed to "Recent Studies" and then we add a hyperlink to a page with a more complete list.

Some researchers it won't apply to because they don't participate in many studies. Others such as Jason, Vernon, Bateman, Peterson, Staines, etc, their names are on every study that they only consult on or supply the patients/samples for.

I like the idea of a hyperlink to a list of studies, bec many studies aren't listed in Pubmed. Our lists could end up more complete. But I'm amenable to whatever the consensus is. Kmdenmark (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2016 (PST)

I think as a general rule we should include ALL studies, but annotate them in a way where we direct the reader towards the more important ones, so if a study was small and had uninteresting results then we could move it to another section (or page if there's a lot) called "Other studies". It is not clear to me either how we judge studies, but I have wondered if we can have criteria like which definition was used, was it blinded, was it controlled, how big was the cohort etc, to guide us. Maybe for now we just do it by eye, and come back to this in future? I don't think we should group by "recent" as that's very hard to keep up to date, and over the longer-term is not so meaningful. Maybe sometimes it makes sense to group by topic? Ollie (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2016 (PST)