Talk:Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine / Radiology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Radiology task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

From PNA[edit]

  • Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry -- anyone out there know of it? I'm amazed all but two of the links I made link to something; I'm in the soft sciences. I only wrote something after coming up bare when I looked it up after having it done. --Charles A. L. 15:47, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
    • I own a DEXA scanner. I have updated the page with appropriate references. --user:statkit1 21:20 Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I laughed out loud![edit]

This statement made me chuckle...

Can plagiarism be any more blatant? Wikipedia doesn't even have an appendix! --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 06:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


response to musicalconnoisseur

Dear Pianista,

Thank you for spotting the the sentence "The full table can be found in the appendix." This is indeed a mistake that requires correction. It is there because the paragraphs that were contributed came from a considerably larger report that I personally put together which actually does have an appendix. It should be mentioned that in my work, whenever an assertation is made or piece of information is given, the source of the statement is always refered to and this is the first time I have referred to my own work.

I have made the correction that you spotted and I encourage you to withdraw the remark.

RS30

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RS30 (talkcontribs) 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely it's not considered the proper thing to cite your own work as a source for claims you are making! Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves". Of course, the crucial word "most" is included. Nevertheless, should such information here be tagged as self-published? leevclarke (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The material that has been submitted from me is a small coverage of information that is in the public domain on this subject, and the sources of that information are given and are verifiable. I cannot see how my small submission deviates from the rules of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.195.11 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection I go even further to say that your critisism is completely inappropriate because although I have put together the small composition, the facts are in the public domain and are considered to be facts in peer-reviewed journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RS30 (talkcontribs) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Recommendations[edit]

The recommendations in this article are quite wtf - it is unclear as to who is making these suggestions or why (ie on what evidence). Are these the recommendations of RS30 (the person who appears to have written the article based on their personal 'considerably larger report' on the subject)? If so they should be exchanged for recommendations from a health body e.g. National osteoporosis association or something similar, based on legitimate evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.204.148 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello! RS30 here[edit]

Does wtf mean "worse than failure"? If this is so, it should have been written in brackets to make it clearer. Actually, the part I submitted is only in the "paediatrics" section and there are 9 references linking the claims back to their sources.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by RS30 (talkcontribs) 20:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


I must admit, since made the submission (all that time ago), the article has been cut up like dog-food. Sorry. That is the nature of wikipedia. The material below the title "Current clinical practice in paediatrics" more or less resembles what I originally added and in my opinion stands up to scrutiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RS30 (talkcontribs) 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


I learnt recently what "wtf" means and really, have to say that you are a moron to use such language in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.210.239.6 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"DXA, previously DEXA"[edit]

The abbreviation was changed from DEXA to DXA by an IP editor in December 2005. Google seems to agree that DXA is now the more common of the two. But why? On what authority? DEXA seems the more logical. Did some governing body or professional association decide on this change? Qwfp (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I was going to ask the same question. The article provides no explanation and uses DEXA throughout. This statement should be sourced and the article should be edited for consistency and accuracy if it is agreed upon that DEXA is no longer used. Myceteae (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Measuring body composition[edit]

The journal review article "Assessment methods in human body composition" suggests that the "uses" section here is not entirely accurate when it calls DXA unreliable for measuring fat. Rather, this section should explain when DXA's results are better than the alternatives and when they are not.

--74.177.70.107 (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of a worked example?[edit]

From the definition: ". Two X-ray beams with differing energy levels are aimed at the patient's bones. When soft tissue absorption is subtracted out, the BMD can be determined from the absorption of each beam by bone." OK, ideally we would have - image from beam 1. - image from beam 2. - difference between them.

one of the previous discussers claimed to own a machine such as this. Can he/she provide these images? Old_Wombat (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

T-score and Z-score definitions[edit]

I think the definitions of the T-score and Z-score should be defined within the article, or at least linked to a new page with specific definitions. The current z-score link within the scoring section takes the user to the standard score page for general statistics.

In this instance the t-score is defined as "A T-SCORE is the number of standard deviations the bone mineral density measurement is above or below the YOUNG-NORMAL MEAN bone mineral density." and a z-score is defined as "A Z-SCORE is the number of standard deviations the bone mineral density measurement is above or below the AGE-MATCHED MEAN bone mineral density." [1].

Regarr (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)