Body weight and nutrition status is evidenced to have an effect on puberty onset as well, due to some input from adipose tissue hormonal signaling.
Prior to onset of gonadarche, stimulation of these hormones from the hypothalamus is suppressed through GABAergic-releasing inhibitory neurons in the central nervous system. Some input of suppression is also linked to secretions of estrogen from immature ovaries in females.
This release is mediated primarily through action of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, a hormonal signaling system active in gestation and fetal development, reactivated around the time of gonadarche to mediate GnRH pulsatile release. This, as mentioned above, sitmulates FSH and LH release.
Onset of gonadarche varies between sexes. Average age of onset averages to around eleven years old in males and averages to around nine years old in females.
Ovulation and follicular functions are stimulated by the gonadotropins released by the HPG axis' action. Ovarian production of progesterone and estradiol come to adult levels through this process
Gonadotropins release mediates maturation of seminiferous tubules to be ready to perform spermatogenesis primarily through stimulation of Sertoli cells, while Leydig cells are similarly stimulted to produce adult levels of testosterone.
Hormonal markers of progression of maturation differ between sexes as well. Tracking of AMH and inhibin B levels can be useful in males, as well as gonadotropin and androgen levels earlier on in puberty. Females also have stable AMH levels, with gonadotropin levels being useful markers longer from between 8 to 4 times as long compared to as in males
Part 1: All group members should respond to the following prompts, with specific examples:
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
Considering the history of the article as of 2020 seems to have just one sentence of information, this group has taken major strides to improving this article! In terms of reviewing based on the framework:
Lead: I like that the lead is short and to the point, but I feel it can give a better overview/sense of what the rest of the article has in store if there was more information included. The topic is clearly and readily defined, which is useful, but maybe some specific incidence to quantify the impact/burden of these injuries might focus me more?
Structure: My biggest takeaway regarding structure of your article is in relation to the "Types" and "Offending Medications" section. I think it might be useful to consider ways to either blend these two together or separate them further. There is a good amount of overlap, particularly with examples of "offending meds" seeming to appear in the "types section" and vice-a-versa. I think these two sections would go well together if combined or restructured!
Balance: In a similar sense, the offending meds and types sections would look more balanced combined! Otherwise, I think the most important topics here are "what is it, and how do we see it", and that is reflected by the large offending/types and diagnosis sections. I feel the appropriate amount of time is spent on these two topics. The special populations tab might be less necessary, instead with its information maybe better suited for the lead? just some thoughts!
Neutral: For the most part, I think this article succeeds at being informative and from an academic standpoint.
Sources: If I had to really try to find something that might not be applicable, the case report used in the Desensitization section, while interesting and adding context, may veer into that sort of "non neutral view" side of things. I think it's written well overall but as a source I might consider omitting it for it's "over-specificity". I may be wrong in what our guidance was to "use case reports" but that's just my thoughts from first observation!
Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
Despite no clear goals appearing in the talk page, I would say this group has exerted sufficient effort, bringing this page to a much more "complete" looking image than its origins in early 2020 based on editing history!
Part 2: Each member of the group should choose one of the following four prompts and respond to it.
Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain)
Some mention of equity is noted in the article (particularly in the precision medicine section of the page), though topics of DEI are rather sparse otherwise. I am unsure if there is a clear-cut answer to whether or not more discussion of these topics is necessary for this review, but I think that it could be achieved by fleshing out the "special populations" section to describe population groups that might be more susceptible/more often taking medications implicated in DILI like this. The discussion of the elderly done so far is done in a tasteful, neutral, and respectful way, and any additions should also reflect this style.
 | This user is a student editor in UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer_2023). |