immune and inflammatory dysregulation

NewAmerica

Banned
Mandarin
This newly published Elsevier paper High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities, used "immune dysregulation", which, according to its Wiki entry - "Immune dysregulation is a pseudo-scientific term."

The question of the thread is whether such a pseudo-scientific term can be used in a scientific paper. Here, language and science intertwine.

Thanks in advance
**********************

The model posits a unique psychoneuroimmunological process such that those with a hyper brain in the form of very superior (at or above 130) cognitive ability lend themselves to a greater tendency to respond to environmental stressors by ruminating and worrying which are positive predictors of risk for psychological overexcitabilities leading to affective disorders.

These disorders are closely associated with a hyper body which manifests in physiological overexcitabilities which take the form of immune and inflammatory dysregulation, which can also bi-directionally instigate psychological effects.


-ScienceDirect

Source
 
Last edited:
  • PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    You are asking the forum a philosophical question. It is not a language question. The Wiki entry is poor quality and somewhat incoherent. Anyone can add an article to Wikipedia - not everyone adds cogent entries.

    The following describes the term "immune dysregulation":
    Autoimmunity and Immune Dysregulation in Primary Immune Deficiency Disorders.
    Lehman HK. [Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015 Sep;15(9):53. doi: 10.1007/s11882-015-0553-x.]

    Primary immune deficiencies are often associated with autoimmune disease due to the dysregulation of the immune system as a whole. In many immune deficiencies, lymphocytes may be present but dysfunctional, allowing for the development of excessive autoreactivity and resultant autoimmune disease.
    Autoimmunity and Immune Dysregulation in Primary Immune Deficiency Disorders. - PubMed - NCBI
     

    The Newt

    Senior Member
    English - US
    I agree with Paul. It's not clear why Wikipedia qualifies the term as "pseudo-scientific"; the words might have been inserted by someone with an axe to grind.
     

    Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    'Pseudo-scientific' isn't always a derogatory reference to ideas that have no basis at all in science, such as belief systems of all sorts.
    It can be used as here, to mean that there is no proof of what is proposed. There's still a great deal to be discovered about how the immune system works and about what causes immune deficiency diseases and autoimmune diseases like lupus, multiple sclerosis and diabetes Type I, in which the immune system is dysfunctional.
    I suppose they are immune dysregulated, because the immune system starts attacking the cells of its own body mistakenly hyperactive. Any immune system activity involves an inflammatory response.
    The idea that there is some neurological link is not new. Various forms of stress have long been implicated as possible triggers of disease onset, among many other environmental factors.
    It's extremely difficult to prove since conducting trials and studies on humans is impossible. They use specially bred mice.
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    While a link between the nervous system and the immune system may be controversial, there is no question that “immune dysregulation” is a perfectly respectable scientific term. Google scholar finds ~198,000 results for publications with “immune dysregulation” (not clear whether that number represents the actual number of publications, but the pages of citations is ~100 on my iPad).
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    Informative!

    Google offers 271,000 results for “immune dysregulation” on my computer, :) which makes your iPad look a bit sheepish. ;)
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Informative!

    Google offers 271,000 results for “immune dysregulation” on my computer, :) which makes your iPad look a bit sheepish. ;)
    Google or Google scholar? Actual numbers from Google searches are usually massive overestimates, no matter what platform:D Either way, the wiki entry describing the term as pseudo-scientific is clealry rubbish and you should ignore it.
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    Google or Google scholar? Actual numbers from Google searches are usually massive overestimates, no matter what platform:D Either way, the wiki entry describing the term as pseudo-scientific is clealry rubbish and you should ignore it.
    Well, Scholar Google only offers 41,600 results for “immune dysregulation.” :D
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Well, Scholar Google only offers 41,600 results for “immune dysregulation.” :D
    Your computer is now sheepish? :eek:
    On my iPad it was 198,000 :D The key is that these numbers are not to be believed as “true”, but estimates based on some algorithm, and they show it is a term widely used in scientific discourse.
    Wikipedia, in a more reliable entry under pseudoscience, says
    Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    Your computer is now sheepish? :eek:
    On my iPad it was 198,000 :D The key is that these numbers are not to be believed as “true”, but estimates based on some algorithm, and they show it is a term widely used in scientific discourse.
    Wikipedia, in a more reliable entry under pseudoscience, says
    That doesn't prove your iPad is courageous. Your results are "fake news" :Dbecause you've removed quote marks from “immune dysregulation.”

    Without the quote marks my results from Scholar Google are 197,000, very close to yours.
     
    Last edited:

    PaulQ

    Banned
    UK
    English - England
    In fact, with quotes, there are, in fact, a miserable 400 results from Google.com:
    [...] In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 400 already displayed.
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    “The question of the thread is whether such a pseudo-scientific term can be used in a scientific paper”

    If you search all the databases at NCBI for the term, using quotes, you find over 60,000 citations with more than 10,000 in the literature and almost 50,000 annotations to the Genome database). Google is not well-suited for many scientific searches.
     
    Last edited:

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    PubMed has 412 pages of 20 papers per page - it’s a real number, not a “google number” :)
    Yes, it is outstanding and professional! One may sample some articles to see that such results are real. There are lots of space for Scholar Google to improve its performance.

    Thank you.

    Thank you all.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top