Talk:Optical coherence tomography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Comment
08-29-06: Any chance of someone in the know adding a layperson definition or brief explanation? I'm editing a consent form for a research study that will use OCT for an investigational purpose. Federal regulations (45 CFR 46.116) require that the information given to a research subject be in language understandable to the subject. Unless the OCT researcher decides to confine recruitment to MIT grad students (unlikely to have the disease in question!), that regulation is going to be pretty hard to meet.
Growmac (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC) I have just added a laypersons section. Should be a start for people to work from anyway. HTH. Gordon.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are there large blank areas for other people that are viewing this page or is it just my browser? I'm not sure how to fix that. Jackkoho 20:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I got it all fixed. Just needed to realign the figures.Aboosh 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There is much more material on the german page of OCT - So a translation might improve the situation on the english pages... On the other hand there was more on this page which was lost somehow. --BoP 15:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article is kind of complicated with a lot of intra-OCT community lingospeak which is great for publishing but may not work for an outsider (say a physician). For example, "ultra high resolution" doesn't really have any meaning if one's reference for high resolution is electron microscopy. I'm going to try to make it a little more palatable.
Anyone else find it moderately terrifying that physicians research their surgical procedures on wikipedia? 128.239.220.80 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reference
There was no link to the following footnote in the article, so I have saved it here:
- 9. J. M. Herrmann, M. E. Brezinski, B. E. Bouma, S. A. Boppart, C. Pitris, J. F. Southern and J. G. Fujimoto, "Two- and three-dimensional high-resolution imaging of the human oviduct with optical coherence tomography," Fertility and Sterility, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 155--158, 1998. Available: sciencedirect.com.
-AED 07:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Commercial links
Growmac (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that all the links to the commercial groups operating in OCT have been removed. I should preface this post by highlighting my interest as a Founding Director of Michelson Diagnostics, the UK based OCT company.
Having read the external link guidelines, I think that this removal is not appropriate. OCT is a commercially young field, and none of the groups operating are working at a 'shifting boxes' stage of R&D. We are still very much at the stage of interacting with potential users and informing the clinical and research community at large about OCT.
Because of these reasons, I believe the links to all the OCT Commercial Organisations were both appropriate and useful. There has been universal care not to allow any commercial advertising or peddling on the page, and I don't think any companies have an interest in abusing the page.
I intend to undo the removal of commercial links because of the above reasons. I am easily contactable via my companies website - search for Michelson Diagnostics on Google if you wish to do so.
Dr Gordon McKenzie, 30th Jan 08
It would seem that the links have been removed again without comment. Would Montco please respond to the points above.
Growmac (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK Doc, not a problem,
- Please refer to external links guidelines point 14 under links to be avoided.
- "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers."
- You assert that "We are still very much at the stage of interacting with potential users and informing the clinical and research community at large about OCT."
- Well good. I think you should include any relevant information about the field in the article, not simply slapping links for these firms on the page. That's not what Wikipedia is here for. If you want to include a list of companies involved in the field, not a problem. You see, if I let your company's link on the page, I have to let them all in and then the page becomes a linkfarm. Also bad. If you want, do something over at Open_Directory_Project and we will ad a single link to the open directory.
- Bottom line is that we aren't here to help every company get their name out. If there is an article about the company, then we put a link to that company on that page. I realize that you think that your field is special and due to this we should make an exception from all the rules. I am afraid it isn't. Everybody thinks that their company is special, that their field is special and that this justifies their inclusion. Please don't put it back, I'll just take it back down.Montco (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A useful response, and I think that the ODP suggestion is a good one. I will get it organised and then place a single link. I wasn't campaigning for special treatment, and was careful not to be anonymous. Growmac (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
