Jump to content

Talk:Modafinil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeModafinil was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 1, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
February 13, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2026Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Statistical Significance

[edit]

I refer to the statement “ Modafinil has been shown to have minor and barely statistically significant effectiveness in managing fatigue in people with MS”; in basic statistical analysis where a p value is predetermined by the researcher to account for the probability that their results are unlikely due to chance, the results can either be “statistically significant “ or not. Even if the p value generated is very close to the the predetermined probability value, this has no meaning whatsoever, because we’re working with probability values or p values based on a normal curve. The error in this article is find sometimes in other scholarly articles I read or asked to review for blind peer reviewed journals; which is something like “ the results where almost statistically significant “ or “ the results approach statistical significance “. These statements are also examples of misinterpretation and or misunderstanding of parametric statistics.

Therefore I strongly recommend that the article be updated to improve scholarly rigour. If no one has raises an objection or needs clarification, or makes the amendment, I will undertake to do this myself.

Dr.khatmando (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC) Dr. Jason M Dixon Advanced psychometrics, epidemiology, clinical educator. Editorial Board, WikiJournal of Medicine[reply]

Yes, that sentence and its paragraph were poorly written and sourced, and were removed with 3 edits in Special:Diff/1289788786. Zefr (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good oh! After looking at the cited references, and the results, discussion of these related to MS, did not add value to the article itself.
Your edits make for a better read. Thanks for your attention to the matter. Cheers Dr. J Dr.khatmando (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1289787389 shows the removal; Special:Diff/1289788786 doesn't.
I don't agree that there's anything inherently wrong with the "the results approach statistical significance" or "barely statistically significant effectiveness" language.
I say that "because we’re working with probability values or p values based on a normal curve" is not a compelling argument.
I object to the removal on that basis.
The "often report" language is certainly not compatible with scholarly rigor. Flagging / Removing. Looking at the widely used review, cite_note-pmid38988104-42, the effectiveness in managing fatigue in PWMS is poor and it directly contradicts the unsourced "without causing drowsiness or disrupting nighttime sleep" claim in the paragraph. Flagging / Removing. Figures 1-5 (all the forest plots) show that across all metrics, most of the individual studies did not find statistically significant effectiveness in managing fatigue in PWMS. Many of the results favored control over Modafonil. RememberOrwell (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Modafinil

[edit]

Hi Boghog; Are you giving any thought to picking up the GAN for this article at the top of this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause and Maxim Masiutin: I have made a number of edits to this article over the years and I am a top 5 contributor which may be disqualifying.
This is becoming a very long article, and a thorough review will be time consuming. A couple of thoughts:
  • The research section should be trimmed to focus on the research topics that have received the greatest attention.
  • Consider trimming or consolidating off-label uses and emphasize that the evidence is mixed or exploratory.
  • As stated in a previous GA, next to the text "Modafinil may also have cognitive benefits in people with bipolar disorder who are in a remission state." the citation PMID 31599501 appears misplaced
  • The following recent relevant reviews that are not yet cited
    • PMID 41367108 - adverse events
    • PMID 40208562 - treatment of residual sleepiness in patients with obstructive sleep apnea
  • Tea with toast raised a number of points here: Talk:Modafinil/GA2#Changes_needed and the response was here: Talk:Modafinil/GA2#On_bipolar_disorder. I found the responses inadequate. A GA review benefits most from clear yes/no answers and concrete edits, rather than extended discussion of how individual papers were read. Clarifying these points directly will help move the review forward efficiently. If key sources are behind paywalls, including a short, focused quotation in the citation that directly supports the statement in the article is appropriate. What editors (including myself) object to are lengthy quotations, which can be distracting and may raise copyright concerns. Boghog (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Boghog; I'm asking on behalf of the GAN page which looks like Modafinil is one of the oldest nomimations on the page; It might be nice to get someone from the med page to consider doing the article at GAN. Separately, those were really good comments about the great apes genetics you made in your other discussion and maybe you might have a follow-up to it? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi ErnestKrause Sorry for being so dense. By "pick up" you mean I take over the nomination and someone else review it? I am OK with addressing @Tea with toast: suggestions and I think that gets us pretty close to GA. I don't have any strong motivations about comparative genetics of the great apes, but I could create a stub for others, especially yourself, to expand. I am not a genetics expert and this is getting way outside of my area of expertise. I feel much more confident with drug articles. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying; my thought is if you might be able to find one of the md doctors who edits Wikipedia to do the review for Modafinil based on the current nomination. Separately, that's perfectly fine about the great apes article, and I'll keep trying to tie-in with some editor who has a interest in genomics or proteomics to start that article. Good wishes. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Articles tend to slowly drift in various directions; I prefer to avoid controversial topics especially for substance banned in some countries. 20:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are still supporting the GAN nomination; it seems to be the oldest nom at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'm looking at this article, having not read it or anything, just skimming through how the prose looks, and think that, maybe, just maybe, I might find this long article a daunting challenge to review. However, that split-up clean-up tag makes it seem like the page needs to be reorganized beforehand, lest the review be predestined to fail.

I think I'd be willing to try and review the article, but I'm not sure if it would be worth it if it's just going to fail, unless you want a detailed list of all the potential issues in this article.

I also think that, if I'm able to do a proper review (unlike the previous two which were labeled as "abandoned", and the nominator responds accordingly, there may not be a need for that clean-up tag. I can't argue that this article is long, or that it definitely needs to be organized. But regardless, would you guys still like me to review this article (considering that I'm in the mood to right now), or should I not considering its current state? — Alex26337 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex26337 I can fix factual or thechnical errors but cannot reorganize the article or do any major articles. I fixed however all objections of previous reviewers. If you think that resoling these objections is enough to meet the requirements, please help and review. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Czarking0 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Modafinil/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 21:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 16:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

StartCzarking0 (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nom is #1 author with >40% of the content written.Czarking0 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig results look fine to me.Czarking0 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Length

[edit]

Update: All concerns in this section have been addressed.Czarking0 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC) I do not immediately dismiss this based on length. It is at 6-7 thousand words readable prose size. That might be fine. However, I do look for statements to remove.[reply]

All concerns addressed Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

[edit]
In Schizophrenia, addressed the jargon concern - it says "prominent negative symptoms (such as reduced motivation or social withdrawal)" rather than "high negative symptom scores." This parenthetical explanation makes the clinical term accessible. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Modafinil/armodafinil tested as add-on to antipsychotics.
Results: no benefit for positive symptoms (hallucinations, delusions) or cognition. May slightly help negative symptoms (low motivation, social withdrawal) in acute schizophrenia, but not in stable patients. Even where effective, the benefit is among the smallest of all add-on medications studied. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]

still, in 2004, the price of modafinil in the US was around $120 or more per monthly supply.[213] However, the availability of generic versions has increased since then and may have driven down prices. Is this really the best you can say? I would think you can make a plot of prices over time. This is outdated and vague.Czarking0 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I gave explanations on unexplained medical jargon and addressed, I hope, all the issues that you raised, thank you for your review. Please find updated article. As for the "Society and culture", I took the recommended order from the article template at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Article_templates/Drug,_treatment,_or_device Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Czarking0 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Modafinil is also prescribed for shift work sleep disorder. Several of the sources I reviewed covered shift work sleep disorder intervention with a similar focus to narcolepsy intervention. I am worried that there is a coverage or at least balance issue here since this seems to be the only statement on this.Czarking0 (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this was underrepresented. Expanded from two sentences to a full paragraph. Now includes: recommended dosing (200 mg before shift, per FDA label), trial outcomes from Czeisler et al. 2005 (improved wakefulness, reduced attention lapses, fewer commute accidents), functional/quality-of-life improvements (Erman et al. 2007), and the Cochrane review conclusion (Liira et al. 2014) noting positive evidence with associated adverse events. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting

[edit]

Spot checks

[edit]

Given that several of these were failed, I plan to do several more spot checks Czarking0 (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Modafinil is occasionally prescribed off-label for individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) I'll count this as  Done but I do not think this is a great summary of the sources.
  • Modafinil is used off-label as an adjunctive treatment for the acute depressive phase of bipolar disorder.[54][55][56] Meta-analyses have found that add-on modafinil and armodafinil are more effective than placebo for treatment response and remission  Done
  • Elimination half-life is in the range of 10 to 12 hours,[10][90] subject to differences in sex,[93] in cytochrome P450 genotypes, liver function and renal function This sentence is too unclear to verify. What is the part after sex claiming?Czarking0 (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, unclear. Reworded to: "...with individual variation depending on sex, cytochrome P450 genotypes, liver function, and renal function." All four factors are now clearly listed as independent variables affecting half-life. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • enzymes of the cytochrome P450 group of enzymes. This phrase is also unclear to the point that I am unable to verify.Czarking0 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says "metabolized hepatically through the cytochrome-P450 system". I think a claim much closer to the source is warranted. Czarking0 (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, awkward and unclear. Changed to "enzymes of the cytochrome P450 system," matching the source (Greenblatt 2022/StatPearls: "metabolized hepatically through the cytochrome-P450 system"). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, awkward and unclear. Changed to "enzymes of the cytochrome P450 system," matching the source (Greenblatt 2022/StatPearls: "metabolized hepatically through the cytochrome-P450 system"). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cephalon faced legal issues for promoting off-label uses and paid $425 million in fines in 2008.  Not done Source says there was only $50 million in fines and the $425 million is an additional settlement. Also the faced legal issues phrasing is not neutral they "plead guilty to one misdemeanor violation of the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act". This is really too many failed spot checks

Ok, can you please review the whole article and ensure that there will be no issues with future spot checks? Normally this level of failed spot checks would constitute a GAF, but you have been responsive and done a good job and the failures were not major. Therefore, I will wait for one more round of corrections, do another round of spot checks and if any fail then I will mark the review as failed otherwise I will say it passed.Czarking0 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for Cephalon, agreed on both points. Rewritten to: "In 2008, Cephalon, the manufacturer of Provigil, pleaded guilty to a federal criminal charge related to its promotion of off-label uses of Provigil and two other drugs, paying $425 million in fines and settlements." Fixes: (a) replaced vague "faced legal issues" with neutral factual "pleaded guilty to a federal criminal charge" per the source; (b) corrected "$425 million in fines" to "$425 million in fines and settlements" since the total included both criminal fines and civil settlement.
I have no idea on what else do I have to edit. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know either. Did you review the whole article to ensure there will not be new issues when I make more spot checks? Czarking0 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article. It was mostly good to my eyes. Although I removed the "As of..." statements and found newer sources if they existed. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Modafinil performs moderately (but better than armodafinil or solriamfetol)[40] as a drug to overcome excessive daytime sleepiness caused by obstructive sleep apnea  Not done This is not a fair characterization when Neshat et. al say "Solriamfetol, notably at 300 mg, is the most effective" Czarking0 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Lead needs more work to reflect the higher quality this article is now at.Czarking0 (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Added one sentence to the end of first paragraph: This adds history and legal status - two key aspects missing from the lead - with minimal change. Uses existing refs (Hersey_2024, Provigil FDA label). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I resolved the issues in the head Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced on the lead. For example misuse or abuse is mentioned twice without saying that the potential is low. In the body, the low potential for abuse is one of the main points I understood. Statements like Modafinil is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in people under 18 years old. Are not very lead worthy. I think a less precise summary sentence about the global status of the drug is quite attainable. You have changed the article a lot and made a lot of improvements. I think the lead just needs to reflect those changes.Czarking0 (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarking0 ok, I will do that Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "misuse or abuse" mentioned twice without saying potential is low - Fixed. The phrase "misuse or abuse" is gone.Instead, paragraph 2 explicitly states: "modafinil has low addiction and dependence potential and does not produce strong euphoria" - directly addressing the your main concern.
  2. FDA under-18 statement - Removed. This overly specific US-centric detail is no longer in the lead.
  3. Global legal status - Simplified to: "It is a prescription medication in most countries" instead of detailed US-specific regulations.
Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. I think this would need to be improved for FA but good enough for GA


1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. I still think the lead could use better refinement but it is good enough for GA
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Looks good
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). See failed spot checks
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I think relative weighting could use some additional reflection but coverage is there.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I think it is good but I have some outstanding concerns for the next review. For example, I just removed a lengthy explanation of CPAP machine that was probably off topic
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. I worry a bit when comparison with other drugs comes in. See the failed spot check I just removed. However I do nto have any glaring violations at this time.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. I am not convinced File:Modafinil 200mg.jpg is CC0. I think it is USSIMPLE but taking a photo of a design does nto give you title to that design. Same with File:Modafinil-generic-aspendos.jpg.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Too many failed spot checks. All the sources need to be checked.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modafinil&oldid=1338390984"