Jump to content

Talk:PANDAS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Scientific update needed -- Article not neutral

[edit]

One reads this article with the impression that there is absolutely no good reason to entertain that PANDAS exists. It speaks to the controversial nature of the subject matter but fails to be neutral. It's obvious the main author thinks the condition is a blanket diagnosis that is overused and has little merit.

The article ends with: "As of 2020, the NIH information pages (which Swedo helped write) do not mention the studies that do not support the PANDAS hypothesis." This line verbatim is used in Dr. Swedo's wikipedia page.

I think the same charge could be leveled at the principal keeper of this article.

Using the phrase, "As of 2021, the autoimmune hypothesis of PANDAS is not supported by evidence" Is not an accurate statement. Perhaps, the evidence is not to the level that is needed for definitive proof, or to martial a broad scientific consensus but to imply that there is no evidence or any evidence in general that could suggest a connection to an autoimmune response is flat out wrong and shows the level of bias in this article.

Here is one recent review that gives a more neutral overview of scholarly conversations, studies , investigations being had:

Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal Infections (PANDAS): Myth or Reality? The State of the Art on a Controversial Disease

PMID: 37894207

PMCID: PMC10609001

DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11102549

Yes, there are conflicting findings, and the studies are of various kinds, but speak to the conflicting evidence. Don't say, "no evidence." Factfinder2024 (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:PA.
The article does not say "no evidence". The "not supported by evidence" content is cited to four WP:MEDRS sources; there are many more.
Section by section, here are some summarizing quotes from the very recent La Bella "Myth or Reality" article you cite:
  1. Abstract: Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal Infections (PANDAS) syndrome is one of the most controversial diseases in pediatric rheumatology. Despite first being described more than 25 years ago ... precise epidemiological data are still lacking, and there are no strong recommendations for its treatment.
  2. Abstract: Recent advances in the comprehension of PANDAS pathophysiology are largely attributable to animal model studies ... (see WP:MEDRS).
  3. Abstract: ... there is a paucity of randomized studies and validated data, resulting in a scarcity of solid recommendations.
  4. Introduction: The absence of consensus in the medical literature is widely attributable to the lack of large randomized studies, the high incidence of both neuropsychiatric disorders and GAS infections in children, the frequent inability to establish clear temporal and causal correlations between GAS infection and the onset of symptoms, the consistent proportion of asymptomatic GAS carriers among children, and the insufficient data regarding the real efficacy of antibiotics in children with PANDAS, particularly in comparison to placebos or other types of drugs.
  5. Epidemiology: There is a lack of precise data regarding the epidemiology of PANDAS.
  6. Pathophysiology: Currently, the pathophysiology of PANDAS is still a matter of debate.
  7. Classification: The lack of identifiable biological markers or distinct clinical characteristics continues to raise doubts and provoke controversy over the accuracy of diagnoses ... The relationship between GAS infections and PANDAS or other neuropsychiatric manifestations is still debatable.
  8. Clinical characteristics: The aforementioned studies did not yield conclusive evidence supporting the presence of distinct phenomenological features specific to PANDAS.
  9. Treatment: ... there is a dearth of randomized studies and validated data for such medications in comparison to placebos, resulting in a lack of robust recommendations. Furthermore, there are currently no established guidelines regarding the right choice of antibiotics for administration.
  10. Conclusions: Despite significant advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis and therapeutic management of affected children, PANDAS remains a subject of dispute among experts. The controversial issues discussed in this paper can primarily be attributed to the challenges associated with establishing a definitive and timely correlation between the occurrence or recurrence of OCD and tic disorder in children who experience multiple GAS infections.
So it seems this 2023 source agrees with the current consensus, as reflected in this article. I have adjusted the wording "not supported by evidence" to be more in line with the wording in the newest sources (still disputed, still debated, and still controversial). Other specific suggestions are welcome, but it doesn't seem necessary to include the full journal article contents when the broad summaries agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original wiki article lacks the nuance and is misleading.
language used by the author is too loaded to be impartial. BeccaW1986 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTAFORUM and provide specific examples backed by specific MEDRS-compliant sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia pages don’t have authors — they are a collection of different people’s writings. there is no one person controlling this page. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 15:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rewriting this page is made more difficult by the ongoing advocacy edits, which are a distraction from the work that needs to happen. We have long needed to deal with the PANDAS --> PANS matter (I think we can relegate PITANDs and CANS content to History sections now).
We need a PANS article now (PANDAS is now assumed to be a subset of PANS), but every time I start thinking about which way to go (combine or separate), I am stymied by pros and cons and the different ways that sources (and advocacy orgs) combine or separate the two. The problem with rewriting and updating is how to deal with these two: as one article (PANS/PANDAS – many recent reviews do that); as two separate articles (PANS vs. PANDAS); or rename this article to PANS, with PANDAS info included in History sections. This decision is made harder by the fact that most PANS advocates are part of PANDAS advocacy networks, so how to solve that. And most reviews combine the two, even though PANDAS is now understood as a subset of PANS.
I will start a separate discussion as soon as I have time, but how to structure this content (so PANS sources can be updated) is non-trivial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia’s core policies — WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and particularly WP:MEDRS for biomedical topics — our priority should be to reflect the best available secondary sources, not to defer to ongoing disputes about advocacy. The suggestion that advocacy edits are the main barrier to improving this page distracts from the real task: bringing the article into alignment with the current literature.
The recent Nature Mental Health review (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-025-03127-5) makes it clear that PANS is now the overarching diagnostic framework, with PANDAS understood as a historical subset. Postponing decisions about structure because of disagreements over advocacy, has left the article outdated.
That delay is not neutral. As the Nature review and other reliable sources note, out-of-date and fragmented information has contributed to clinical confusion and real-world harm for affected families. Wikipedia has a responsibility to avoid perpetuating that harm by reflecting current consensus in reliable reviews.
Framing this as an issue of advocacy versus science delays progress. The priority under Wikipedia policy is to base the article on high-quality secondary sources and update it accordingly. BeccaW1986 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this response shows an overall lack of understanding of the amount of time and effort a split like this would take. No one is saying that we shouldn’t differentiate between the two, what Sandy is saying is that people do not have unlimited time and energy so when those resources are spent trying to deal with POV, advocacy and fringe views then there is little left over for other things.
Not to mention that this page does currently reflect the best possible secondary sources — despite constant attempts from others to insert low quality or primary sources.
Im also very confused why you linked a primary source for supposedly reaching a consensus on terminology after saying that we should use the best possible secondary sources? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say the Nature article is a review? PMID 40885847 is a very recent primary study. I believe we are agreed that PANS is the overarching diagnosis now, and we have WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE-compliant secondary reviews stating that. Whether to create a separate PANS article, or combine the two (PANS/PANDAS) as most sources do, is a question to be resolved, preferably with other input, which I will seek later today, as soon as I have time to start a post. Regardless, there is not much new in secondary sources. Do you have any secondary sources that have been missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies my earlier comment about the Nature article was unclear — I did not mean to imply it was a consensus statement, I intended to use it merely to provide context and framing for the point I was making which Wikipedia policy allows as long as it is not the basis for claims about diagnostic standards. I stand by the overarching point I made the lack of neutrality in the wiki article.
That said @IntentionallyDense, per WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV, remarks implying a lack of understanding or are misusing time/effort are inappropriate/indicate perceived incompetence. References to "fringe views" seem unnecessarily adversarial. Comments that appear to belittle others’ comments discourage collaboration. Thank you for the tag in naming article @SandyGeorgiawill give some thought. BeccaW1986 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(comment moved to user talk page as to not clutter the article talk page) IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 00:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note here ... I've followed PANDAS for at least two decades, and have never seen it described as "fringe" (in the sense we use the term on Wikipedia).
What we see more often in this article is simpler: misunderstanding of how Wikipedia treats biomedical information relative to primary sources. Frequently, well-intentioned editors want to construct arguments and content based on primary sources, as we saw recently, which is what they are accustomed to doing in other settings (eg academic writing, advocacy writing, essays, etc), but not how Wikipedia biomedical content is constructed (we prefer secondary sources, and only use primary in rare circumstances). We frequently see this in all medical areas, and often from "academics" (someone wrote a Wikipedia essay about this, which I can't find right now). Some excellent and reputable minds (eg, James Leckman) are at work trying to sort out exactly what is going on with the kids who present with what seem to be sudden and dramatic exacerbations, but for reasons covered in this article, the hypotheses are very hard to validate. Many reputable academics feel that something is going on with this subset of children, but that the current hypotheses aren't there yet.
The reason that sometimes PANDAS discussions "feel" "fringe-y" (ala Morgellons) is more related to a) the "internet-armed parents" aspect, furthered by b) social media and other advocacy groups, and c) practitioners pursuing treatment options outside of any guideline or medical evidence, preying on the parents desperately seeking help. So we should take care not to consider the topic "fringe-y", rather it is sometimes the treatment that may be, or proponents who argue from less-than-best use of sources.
Also, please remember to use editor talk pages to discuss individual behavioral issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out, I wasn't implying that the article itself is fringe, moreso that some of views brought up on the talkpage have been bordering on fringe viewpoints (i meant fringe as in not accepted by the scientific community). IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it ... just checking that everyone has more history. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found the essay I referred to ... actually a Help page ... Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the paper published by the AAP; the tag 'controversial' no longer applies, period. Much can be said about treatment options, diagnosis, etc, and this is all ok by me. But let us at least be clear on this important point: PANS/PANDAS is no longer a controversial diagnosis. Next steps are better and more thorough research on the identification and treatment of this condition.
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/doi/10.1542/peds.2024-070334/200384/Pediatric-Acute-Onset-Neuropsychiatric-Syndrome Sirdragos (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make things even more clear, here a citation of the AAP press release:
"The AAP believes PANS is a valid diagnosis and is providing guidance on diagnosis and treatment in the new report. It also is calling for robust research to improve care for the condition." Sirdragos (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been covered several times on this talk page; please read the full page. A) We can use that pre-print in March after it is published to add an attributed opinion about the AAP's statement on PANS (which is *not* PANDAS); and B) even at that, the AAP opinion says nothing not already known and stated in the article about both PANS and PANDAS. Once we get through this stage of making sure Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are understood, we should separately discuss renaming the article, since most of what has been written here this month is focused on PANS, while there is very little to update about PANDAS, other than adding newer citations to support existing text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reread article, “remains unproven” cites articles 6 years old. Glad found respected doctor to repeatedly treat and cure daughter of this nasty condition. Also ran into doctors first that did nothing and I’m sure would have loved to contribute to slant of this article. 2600:1008:B110:1602:602A:EF65:D3D9:80E (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For ref.
2020:
1. Stanford, Diffusion MRI-based Microstructural Differences.
2. Columbia, Th17 Role in Postinfectious Autoimmune Encephalitis.
3. Yale, Antibodies Binding to Striatal Cholinergic Interneurons.
4. IVIG Treatment in PANDAS/PANS.
2021:
5. Evaluation of Intravenous Immunoglobulin in PANS.
2022:
6. PANS and IVIG.
7. Identification of Ultra-Rare Genetic Variants in PANS.
2023:
8. Stanford, Neuroinflammation in OCD, SC, PANDAS, and PANS.
9. University of Arizona, IVIG Treatment Outcomes in PANS.
10. Columbia, Distinct Th17 and BBB Inflammatory Responses.
11. Stanford, Elevated Antibody Binding in PANS.
2024:
12. Stanford, CSF Findings in PANS.
13. Stanford, Neurological Soft Signs in PANS.
14. University of Oklahoma, Dopamine Receptor Antibodies.
15. Immunological Characterization of an Italian PANDAS Cohort. BeccaW1986 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“ PANDAS, PANS and CANS are the focus of clinical and laboratory research but remain unproven” then cites 4 articles 6 years old. 2600:1008:B110:1602:602A:EF65:D3D9:80E (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can easily update the citations if we can move beyond educating about policies and guidelines -- but that content won't change based on adding more recent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeccaW1986; you have already been pointed to WP:NOTAFORUM and informed about WP:MEDRS and how Wikipedia uses secondary sources; could you please stop filling the talk page with primary sources? The purpose of talk pages is to discuss edits to improve articles, and we aren't going to "improve" them by doing original research with primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s policies, including WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:MEDRS. While I understand the need to rely on high-quality secondary sources for medical topics, dismissing the discussion of primary sources outright risks oversimplifying the process of improving this article. I keep repeating this but feel like it’s being misunderstood.
First, WP:MEDRS does encourage the use of secondary sources for medical claims, but it does not prohibit the inclusion of primary sources altogether. Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are acceptable for straightforward, descriptive statements about research or findings, provided they are used with caution and do not involve original interpretation or synthesis. For a developing topic like PANDAS, primary sources may provide necessary context, especially when there is limited consensus in secondary literature.
Second, the assertion that discussing primary sources constitutes “original research” misrepresents the principle of WP:NOR. Original research refers to editors drawing novel conclusions or interpretations from sources, which is not the same as using primary sources to support factual statements that are appropriately contextualised.
Finally, I believe this could benefit from engaging constructively with the suggestions being made. Instead of dismissing contributions wholesale, it would be more in line with WP:CONSTRUCTIVE to explain how the inclusion of specific primary sources could be balanced by corresponding secondary sources or how they might inform potential edits. This approach would foster collaboration and better align with the spirit of Wikipedia’s collaborative editing process.
In summary, while I agree with the need to prioritise secondary sources and avoid turning the talk page into a forum, dismissing primary sources entirely oversimplifies the issue and risks overlooking valuable context that could improve the article’s neutrality and accuracy.
Finally, a personal plea. As per Wikipedia’s guidelines on WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith), I kindly ask that we focus on discussing specific edits or points of contention rather than repeated personal attacks that presume my unfamiliarity with sources, as this can detract from constructive collaboration. BeccaW1986 (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use primary sources to override what secondary sources say about them. It's just that simple. Everyone participating here has engaged the flurry of posts from the last few weeks, I don't see anyone ignoring them, and there have been multiple explanations that the secondary sources (including the new AAP pre-print) are generally in agreement. Having to repeat this is becoming bludgeoning. Once the AAP article is published in final form, a good option will be to turn this article upside down and have it focus mainly on PANS rather than PANDAS, relegating PANDAS to a subset of the broader PANS, but even if the content is re-arranged to that form, the sources are still concluding the same and most of the sections won't change by much. We can make faster progress on that as new editors engage and understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so we don't have to churn up bandwidth on things that won't impact article improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that repeated discussions can be frustrating, but I would encourage us to maintain a more civil tone (WP:CIVIL) in the conversation. Dis missing language might hinder productive collaboration. Keeping our discussions respectful and focused on improving the article is key to maintaining a positive environment, especially when engaging with different perspectives.
You mentioned that “the sources are still concluding the same and most of the sections won’t change by much.” While this seems to reflect a personal belief in a general consensus, it’s important to remain open to the possibility of differing viewpoints, especially as new sources are introduced.
I think we should be cautious about implying that the consensus is final without leaving space for other perspectives, as Wikipedia’s NPOV policy encourages us to represent all significant viewpoints fairly and neutrally.
I appreciate your desire to make progress quickly, but I believe it’s important to ensure that new editors are welcomed and encouraged as they familiarize themselves with Wikipedia’s policies. Using terms like “churn up bandwidth” may unintentionally discourage new contributors. Instead, we can foster a collaborative environment by encouraging new editors to learn and engage with the guidelines, ultimately helping the article improve with more diverse contributions.
Overall, I agree with your goal of improving the article, but I believe we can achieve this more effectively by maintaining a collaborative, respectful tone. BeccaW1986 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article as it stands is frightening. I am a university based physician treating this illness. The content here is so out of date and slanted that I believe it threatens the health of children. I tried to make updates with citations, as much as I had time for, just to take out the worst of the bias. Everything I wrote was canceled. I would like to fix this article again, but the person who is controlling this content will cause me to waste my time again. Really dangerous stuff here, and the article should be taken down entirely so it can be re-written from scratch. It's really ill-informed. READER BEWARE. 2600:8802:6900:153:BDB1:2640:3C71:48DC (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia follows secondary sources, doesn't lead. Your edits were largely based on dated primary sources, refuting more recent secondary reviews; if you have secondary sources or literature reviews not yet reflected in the article, please produce them. A helpful page is Wikipedia's guideline for sourcing biomedical content. Also, please review the policy on personal attacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is nearing its end. My daughter suffered miserably from this condition, treated by an incredible physician at the beast hospital in my state and recovered. I agree with physician in field above. This article is dangerous. Wikipedia is held by quasi professional gate keepers with agendas. 2600:1700:9A00:3080:656E:3B18:22CF:9633 (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article naming: covering PANS v PANDAS

[edit]
Notified WT:MED. [1]

Until roughly ten years ago, we had four hypotheses under investigation: PANDAS, PITANDs, PANS, and CANS. Secondary reviews now (almost?) universally (since about 2018-ish) view PANDAS as a subset of PANS (first proposed in 2012, and broader than the PANDAS hypothesis). In terms of placement in WP:MEDORDER, I believe PITANDs and CANS can be covered under History.

With PANS now considered the overarching hypothesis, a question of article naming comes up. Both hypotheses remain controversial, but PANS has gained more traction, which is being lost with our current article naming, structure, organization, and emphasis on PANDAS.

Most recent secondary reviews are already included in the article, with the exception of:

  • PMID 37251418 2023, "Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome: Current Perspectives"

And we could also make mention of this (not PUBMED-indexed, not a review, but usable as represents a major medical body):

Although I've asked repeatedly, no other secondary sources have been brought forward.

To be resolved with respect to article naming:

PANDAS still predominates in sources:

So in terms of article naming, do we:

  1. Rename this article to PANS, and cover more of PANDAS under History?
  2. Rename this article to PANS and PANDAS, and cover both together as many sources do?
  3. Have two separate articles (PANDAS, PANS)?

Reworking the content to reflect current thinking on PANS will be easier once we decide where to place the content. I'll offer my own opinions after others have opined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The PubMed ID of the American Academy of Pediatrics report is 39676248.
I'd lean towards keeping the article mostly as is but perhaps incorporate some of the points made by the AAP (although most of the points are already in the article sourced to other documents). Another possible rename would be PANS/PANDAS or PANDAS/PANS. I don't have strong opinions about the article name. ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel like the PANS/PANDAS might work best (similiar but also very different to ME/CFS, with the new, better defined term first and the mostly historical term second). IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 01:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re ScienceFlyer thanks, I missed that because I had filters set for reviews only. IntentionallyDense, are ME/CFS the same thing with two different names? If so, we should factor that PANS and PANDAS are not two different names for the same thing, rather one is a subset of the other (not sure if that matters, just saying). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same thing (somewhat but to simplify, yes they are). I do realize it is different in that sense I just wanted to point out that there is other articles that use more than one title. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working on book sources still, to add so far:

  • Malik O, Martino D, Hedderly T (2022). "Part V: Emergent and controversial conditions Chapter 22: Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome". In Beauchamp MH, Peterson RL, Ris MD, Taylor, HG (eds.). Pediatric Neuropsychology: Research, Theory, and Practice (Third ed.). Guilford Publications. pp. 490–508. ISBN 978-1-462549-580.
    Google books excerpt, for those who can access it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sande L, Flores AR (2024). "Section 16: Bacterial infections Chapter 82: Group A, Group C and Group G β-hemolytic streptococcal infections". In Cherry J, Kaplan SL, Demmler-Harrison GJ, Steinbach W, Hotez PJ, Williams JV (eds.). Feigin and Cherry's Textbook of Pediatric Infectious Diseases (Ninth ed.). Netherlands: Elsevier. pp. 819–829. ISBN 978-0-323827-645.
  • Singer HS, Mink JW, Gilbert DL, Jankovic J (2022). "Chapter 18: Movement disorders in autoimmune disease". Movement Disorders in Childhood (Third ed.). Netherlands: Academic Press. pp. 536–561. ISBN 978-0-323900-072.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked for any sources. Just from general knowledge, I wonder if we're at the point of being able to split PANS from PANDAS. If so, I think we'd have PANDAS as a separate (i.e., this) article, and a short-ish article at PANS, which says it's the overarching category and which mentions PITANDs and CANS in its ==History== section.

If we don't split, then I think we should seriously consider renaming this article to PANS, as the more general case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing if you have time, have a look at the three books sources above. I'm as yet unconvinced about which way to go, as the two entities are so related, as is the research on them. I'm not yet convinced they can or should be separated. There is (surprisingly) very little new information, but it is rare to find any source that separates them, and some sources point out that most of the PANS-related research is actually PANDAS research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Gagliano 2023 (PMID 37251418) uses the term "PANS-related disorders" and says:

In conclusion, PANS and PANS-related disorders should be considered as a conceptual framework to describe the etiological and phenotypical complexity of many psychiatric features. Overcoming the rigid categorical approach, PANS can be seen as one of the possible phenotypic manifestations of the complex pathogenic pathways leading to neurodevelopmental disorders. ... Finally, our choice to only use the acronym PANS (since the acronym PANDAS is encompassed in the more inclusive acronym PANS) serves as a stimulus to archive PANDAS acronym as a historical concept, of pivotal importance as milestone toward a new pathogenic model of psychiatry, but currently obsolete.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support "PANS/PANDAS" per comments above that they are not synonyms. I'm not enthusiastic about separate articles, due to the difficulty of avoiding unwanted commonality/repetition, lacking wanted commonality, and sourcing complications. I think it would be hard to reliably figure out if a statement belongs only in one article and not the other. Searching PubMed for PANS gives article titles that include both with various ways of mentioning both but Wikipedia articles are on one topic even if writers want to discuss both. It looks like some sources prefer PANS to talk about the overall subject and maybe this article should be renamed accordingly. This may conflict with PANDAS being more commonly used historically and possibly why authors retain PANDAS in their article titles even if they are writing about PANS. -- Colin°Talk 11:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is why I am leaning towards "PANS and PANDAS" (see WP:AND – it fits); that is unconventional in terms of article naming, but it's an unconventional situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how the examples at WP:AND fit "PANS and PANDAS". They aren't yin and yang complementary concepts, for example. I can't figure out entirely if the Venn bubble of PANS encloses PANDAS or if the two diagnostic definitions have some separation. Sources seem refer to both together repeatedly in a way that suggests PANS is not a satisfactory superset. But there's also CANS and PITAND hanging on, so how does "PANS and PANDAS" include those? Maybe just live with PANDAS as the article for the original hypothesis, from which these other ideas have spawned. We are, perhaps, over thinking this issue. The important thing is people can find the article, link to the article and we all agree on the topic of the article. -- Colin°Talk 18:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to overthinking, but every time I try to think about how to improve content, I am stumped by how to name it. Maybe leave it alone for a while longer, add new sources, see where it goes ... and hope for some new secondary sources. The pace of new reviews seems to have slowed. I will try to do some content work this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly looked upon the sources I've found to date ([2], [3], [4], [5]), at least two separate articles can be written. As for the "PANS and PANDAS" article, if I understand the sources correctly, such an article can be considered too for the shared properties of the two disorders, since there are reliable sources that describe these disorders in this way. So it's mainly the question of notability for each of these 3 topics. D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I didn't dig deeply, so I don't know if PANS/PANDAS is usually really only about shared common properties of overlapping conditions and not just about PANDAS. One should be extremely careful starting such a topic and check everything. D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree one could imagine two separate articles in an encyclopaedia, and an expert writer could discern which sources they feel relevant to which article. But this is Wikipedia, and I don't think our powers as editors extends enough for us to separate the two from our sources, which frequently conflate the two, sufficiently reliably to create entire articles dedicated to each. -- Colin°Talk 08:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "PANS and PANDAS", we could have a single article on "PANS-related disorders". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a good direction to go ... with Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS), Childhood acute neuropsychiatric symptoms (CANS), PITANDs, PANDAS and PANS and PANDAS all redirects to PANS-related disorders. This term is not used by the majority of sources, but is used by an important source, and is one way to solve an unconventional issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the source says "PANS and PANS-related disorders" clearly implying that "PANS-related disorders" are "all the things other than just PANS". They repeat this "PANS and PANS-related disorders (PANS-RD)" several times in the article, and in fact don't define what the "PANS-related disorders" are. It is odd. The source article title is "Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome: Current Perspectives" (i.e. PANS) and their conclusion says clearly "since the acronym PANDAS is encompassed in the more inclusive acronym PANS" and regard PANDAS as "obsolete" and "historical". While "PANS-related disorders" has some attractions to deal with the whole set of subjects, I don't think using this source is a convincing argument for that. This source doesn't seem to make its mind up whether PANS is the whole topic or "PANS and PANS-related disorders" is the whole topic. -- Colin°Talk 08:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book and long journal sources, and citation formatting

[edit]

We should always give page numbers when using book sources, and page numbers or article section are also useful for finding/verifying content in long journal articles, PDFs, etc. For examples of the citation formatting used in our most recent medical Featured articles, see the following examples:

... etc.

Another method of providing page numbers can be seen at

... where the page number is added inline next to the citation. IMO, this is less preferable, because it clutters the text, and when page numbers aren't available, with sfns, we can use section names (which can be long) instead.

The format I suggest is not required, but is helpful to the reader for verification.

As I work on adding the book sources above, or updating older citations, I will begin converting to an sfn format that indicates page or section name, unless someone objects re WP:CITEVAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-autoimmune PANDAS (NDAS?)

[edit]

see user: Richard Austin M

I am trying to initiate discussion, around a longitudinal case study: me. Read the brief description, which was the non-AI developed version of my knowledge on my user page.

As a review process, I've been running that page, unedited, through Google search ai mode and with a bit of tweeking, we both agree to the facts: GAS can lead to permanent brain damage due to a systemic peripheral flood of CD4+ T cells and related interleukin-17 temporarily making the brain-blood barrier permeable to larger leukocytes, which recognize brain tissue as foreign. Richard Austin M (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Austin M Thank you for your note. Please look at WP:MEDRS, which explains that medical claims need to be verifiable and reliably sourced, preferably through secondary sources. An essay Why MEDRS? may be helpful as well. Wikipedia articles cannot contain original research.
It's a good idea to get agreement on the talk page before making potentially controversial changes to articles. You can create drafts in your sandbox.
Also please be cautious of using large-language models (AI). Text produced by LLMs is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. ScienceFlyer (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PANDAS&oldid=1329365062"