User talk:NeuroStudent21/sandbox

From In-class Review on 4/09/19

NeuroStudent21 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Ordering of the sections in original article potentially confusing. The article overall is "cognitive reserve" but there is also a subsection called "cognitive reserve". --> organizational opportunity

"Brain reserve" section --> why is this presented before cognitive reserve? Does it imply that brain reserve lead to cognitive reserve? (this is the implication in the organization)

Perhaps include a neural reserve section --> how to I request to rename the page neural reserve? Neural reserve is the umbrella term under which brain reserve and cognitive reserve subsections.

Include an image ("or two!") --> How do I do that? The only images are from research articles/reviews and I can't include those images. The photos in the public domain are irrelevant or nonexistent.

Clinical implications: -include newer studies -is there more than just Alzheimer's? because that's all they talk about. -"If there are things that we know on the literature review level about CR in healthy aging brains then we definitely want to include that particularly because this is not something that is limited to AD - i think that CR is something that we have to talk about in the context of nearly any kind of normal aging or pathologies and there are lots of different dementias that get involved plus just normal ware and tear. I have a feeling that we are going to start very rapidly seeing (and this is just a suspicion from reading student lit reviews) CR come up in sleep studies and what happens when we are chronically sleep deprived so yeah I think that leaving the door open to discussing it in a wide variety of contexts is important."

Possibly include pathology of healthy aging (like Marks et al, 2017 from Neuropsychology LOL). I've never seen a CR sleep study but that's an interesting idea.

Additional notes: "A note to Lucy: you absolutely want to go to the talk page to tell them that you are updating the information and WHY. Let your intents be known. If you have to use a number of individual studies instead of reviews like for clinical information, put the note on the talk page and say, 'I updated this and few literature reviews are available so here is what I found.' Medical reviewers are really demanding so always check PubMed just in case. You might get identical results from Medline via Web of Science because technically they should be identical with PubMed being the public one but they are not always the same. so always check. part of our work is not just adding to these articles but doing a better job of figuring out how the article fits into the encyclopedia. Part of that work is dealing with stuff on the talk page when you're not sure, so the talk page interactions are key. You'll probably want to continue to interact with the talk pages all summer because now you are part of this world!"