Talk:Kaempferol

Untitled

As a class project, several college students will be editing and adding to this page over the next few months. As a result, we will be changing this page a lot over the next little while. We hope that by December, this article will be extensive, well cited, and incredibly useful to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraAuthor (talk • contribs) 00:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaempferol appears to be a significant flavonoid. As of 4/2010 I can not find a Kaempferol supplements for sale; unlike quercetine and myricetin, which are readily available as supplements. JosephCampisi (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

various minor problems

The entry for blackberry gives the name as Rubus fruticosus rather than Rubis as listed under "In food". I suspect V. acrocarpon should be V. macrocarpon. Ref. 14 & 15 are the same. 69.72.92.117 (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kaempferol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621083657/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Other/IFT2003_TeaFlav.pdf to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Other/IFT2003_TeaFlav.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3 is Probably Unreliable

Reference 3, Calderón-Montaño JM, Burgos-Morón E, Pérez-Guerrero C, López-Lázaro M (April 2011). "A review on the dietary flavonoid kaempferol". Mini Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry. 11 (4): 298–344 is cited to support almost every claim in our article that Kaempferol has been studied for efficacy in treating an illness or actually is effective in treating an illness. Under WP:VERIFIABLE we must cite reliable secondary sources for information. WP:RSMED lays down specific requirements for reliable sources of medical information, specifically deprecating the use of sources published in predatory journals.

Our article now cites Calderon-Mantano et al 34 times to support assertions of fact made within the article. There's a tag on the "Potential Pharmacology" section of our article bringing editors' attention to the following problem:

"This section needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources. Please review the contents of the section and add the appropriate references if you can. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged and removed."

This section preponderantly relies on Calderon-Mantano et al to support specific assertions of Kampferol's efficacy for treating various medical conditions, mostly types of cancer. WP:RSMED states specifically that

"Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be replaced with the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability... If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed."

While Calderon-Mantano et al purports to be a review of the medical literature, its reliability is questionable.

The venue in which Calderon-Mantano et al had been published, Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry, is published by Bentham Science Publishers's open access division, which has been criticized for deceptive publishing practices, in which articles are published predominantly in consideration of payment of fees to the publisher, not subsequent to meaningful peer review.

The editor(s) who have cited Calderon-Mantano et al in our article to support statements about Kaempferol have done nothing in five years to address the issues mentioned in the tag.

To restore this article to compliance with our guidelines on reliable secondary sourcing and use of reviews of the medical literature in reliable medical journals, I am removing any statement of fact which depends solely on Calderón-Montaño JM, Burgos-Morón E, Pérez-Guerrero C, López-Lázaro M (April 2011). "A review on the dietary flavonoid kaempferol". Mini Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry. 11 (4): 298–344 as its source. Please respond here in the article talk page before reverting any of my changes. --loupgarous (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While editing our article as described above, I've found statements that Kaempferol has potentially proven effective in the treatment of disease citing other sources which are not reviews of the medical literature. Five years after the tag was placed on the "Potential Pharmacology" section of this article, reviews of the medical literature should have been published if kaempferol actually had potential as a pharmaceutical or lead compound in drug development, but none have been cited in support of the statements made supporting kaempferol. Therefore, I'm also deleting any statement regarding kaempferol's utility or potential utility as a pharmaceutical which is not supported by a review of the medical literature. Please do not revert these changes without discussing the removals here on the article talk page. --loupgarous (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do We Need the Huge List or Table in the Section "Natural Occurrence" or the Section "Biosynthesis" at All?

Do we still need to document the natural occurrence of kaempferol as our article now does?

References to the "Potential Pharmacology" of kaempferol unsupported by reviews of the medical literature were removed (five years after a tag requested changes to replace the sources used then with reliable secondary sources, and no reviews of the medical literature in reliable secondary medical sources were cited in support for medicinal claims made for kaempferol. I also removed the "Pharmacokinetics" section of our article because it supported the therapeutic claims made for kaempferol made in "Potential Pharmacology" which are no longer there.

The table showing how much kaempferol is supplied by various foods, or the section "Biosynthesis" also supported details of pharmalogical activity for kaempferol Those claims are no longer in our article.

Kaempferol's value in human nutrition would justfy the lists given under "Natural Occurrence", but after poorly sourced comments were removed, there's nothing supporting any claim to human nutrition in our article as it now exists.

I'm leaving those sections in the artcile in place, and I would be happy if an editor supplied statements about kaempferol's value in human nutrition (or medicinal value, for that matter) supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources. If none are forthcoming in a few months, we should consider deleting sections of our article which don't support its encyclopedic value.

Thanks in advance for your help. --loupgarous (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]