Talk:Interstitium

Not a newly discovered structure in 2018

The interstitium of individual organs has been discussed as a fluid space or extracellular compartment since the 1950s-70s, with numerous reviews included among these abstracts and titles. The 2018 report here is not a "discovery" of a new organ, but discusses a microscopic subcompartment that is part of the general interstitium. The news reports reflect public ignorance of what physiologists and medical students have known for > 50 years. Reverting the current article description as misleading per WP:BRD and WP:RECENTISM --Zefr (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

ok, I revised that section. please note, from the article that you quoted:

In sum, we describe the anatomy and histology of a previously unrecognized, though widespread, macroscopic, fluid-filled space within and between tissues, a novel expansion and specification of the concept of the human interstitium.

--Sm8900 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Any discussion of the interstitium not being a newly discovered structure should certainly mention acupuncture, and of fascia's role in massage. (by IP user 190.212.195.87)

Moving the added content below back to Talk, as the issue is WP:RECENTISM which states this is a "phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others: a) Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. b) Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. c) The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus."

The proposed addition is already covered in the section, Research. The source here is primary research, so diverts from WP:MEDMOS, "not a medical primary resource" and the proposed subhead, "Discovery and debate..." violates MEDMOS as conjectural, unestablished findings per WP:NOTNEWS -- see the Discussion by Benias et al. who interpret their own findings as a "proposal" with "possible" "implications", "may serve", "may explain", etc. This is primary, speculative research only, i.e., not encyclopedic. --Zefr (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed from the article until WP:CON merits it to be included in the article.

:In 2018, new research claimed to have found evidence that the interstitium was a previously-undiscovered organ, and that it had not been previously recognised due to sample-preparation techniques which are now known to collapse the structure of the interstitium.

However, while these claims did receive much attention from the scientific community, some scientists expressed doubt about the accuracy of these claims, while still acknowledging the claims as significant. In the words of one scientist at University of Texas:

"It is fair to say that histologists [and] pathologists have long known that there is an interstitial space and that it contains fluid. The claim that it is a hitherto undiscovered organ, and the largest one ever at that, seems a stretch.”

Similarly, a scientist from Yale School of Medicine said:

"I would think of this as a new component that is common among a variety of organs, rather than a new organ in and of itself. It would be analogous to discovering blood vessels for the first time, in that they are in every organ but they aren't an organ themselves."

The interstitium was identified using confocal laser endomicroscopy and fluroscein injection of bile duct tissue. A microscopic subcompartment of the interstitial space, having a depth of 60–70 micrometres (0.0024–0.0028 in) and filled with lymph, was reported as draining into lymph nodes, and was structurally supported by a network of collagen.

References

WP:CON already justifies this to be included, since dozens of sources do call this a new finding. I have reflected the debate on this, as per comments here. I will wait a while to allow others to comment. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:CON is not an external source policy, but rather emphasizes consensus among Wikipedia editors, which has not been established yet for this discussion, so the existing definition stands. Note that none of the "dozens of sources" you mention (sources inside the reference box) is an authoritative anatomical or medical source, leading to my assessment that this is a case of non-expert news media blowing a preliminary medical research finding out of proportion. Further, since the interstitium is a topic for Wikiproject Medicine, WP:MEDASSESS stresses the need for a systematic review to put the finding of a submucosal space into a new perspective, if it will change at all. --Zefr (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I came to this article looking for mention of its discovery and historical development of research. Shouldn’t all of the above be in the actual article? It seems odd that I had to comb through the talk page to find it. Morganfitzp (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Morganfitzp I agree. Certainly it can be formulated to express the uncertainty, but still communicate the development. Curran919 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGW3303 Adv. Writing for the Environmental Professions

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 17 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EnvrSci (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by EnvrSci (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

History Section

In response to Morganfitzp (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC) and Curran919 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC) following WP:GF and WP:BOLD, I added the History section to address the Theise discovery in 2018 now that it has been six years since publication while still conveying uncertainty surrounding the findings. Hoping this is a start to moving this topic out of the talk page, and open to feedback & changes. EnvrSci (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with your apparent conclusion that the Theise primary research is either significant (it is preliminary research only, remaining unconfirmed) or is history. See first discussion topic above - this was sufficiently discussed in 2018. When a review writes about it in a quality journal or textbook, we can reconsider the issue.

Curious - how does this topic in histology pertain to your coursework in writing for the environmental professions? Zefr (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I also came here looking for, i.a., the history of research and found no history section. I was motivated by this radio program: https://radiolab.org/podcast/interstitium

"Interstitial space (biology)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Interstitial space (biology) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 27 § Interstitial space (biology) until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 21:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)