1

I read in this 2012 research paper {1}:

The aetiopathogenesis of CT [calcific tendinopathy] is still controversial, but seems to be the result of an active cell-mediated process and a localized attempt of the tendon to compensate the original decreased stiffness.

Has the cause of calcific tendinopathy been more clearly determined since then?

References:

Franck Dernoncourt
  • 1,855
  • 3
  • 17
  • 33
  • 1
    The article that you linked states that the exact mechanism is not known but lists different theories. A question like "has anything more been discovered" is broad. Did you try checking the articles that cite this one? It's easy to do that on google scholar. – WYSIWYG Jun 17 '19 at 17:14
  • @WYSIWYG 109 articles cite this paper, and a paper that found the cause of calcification might not have cited this paper. I was hoping that some expert on this website already knows the answer. The question is clear and I don't think it is too broad: The question is "What causes a tendinopathy to calcify?" If that's too broad, you'll need more than 40 close votes per day. – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 17 '19 at 18:51
  • 1
    The question "What causes a tendinopathy to calcify?" is broad indeed. There may be several processes involved at the subcellular and tissue level. It is not possible to list and explain every pathway involved. You must add more details to your question. You certainly know more than me about this field; you can look at more recent papers. The paper that you mention is the first hit on google. Since you study tendons you could definitely search more recent papers on this topic. You can add those findings and make your question more precise. – WYSIWYG Jun 17 '19 at 20:04
  • @WYSIWYG If the question "What causes a tendinopathy to calcify?" is closed as too broad, then a large portion of questions posted on https://biology.stackexchange.com should be closed for the same reason. – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 17 '19 at 20:08
  • You can certainly vote to close them. – WYSIWYG Jun 17 '19 at 20:11
  • @WYSIWYG I don't think it's too broad, and I think one should cast close vote consistently across questions. https://biology.stackexchange.com/tour says "Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students". The question "What causes a tendinopathy to calcify?" is perfectly fine for student-level. – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 17 '19 at 20:12
  • 1
    I don't want to go into an extended discussion but just to make you realize I'll throw a similar question at you: what causes diabetes? Tell me if it is broad or not. Anyway, ***I*** think your question is broad and needs more details and I am free to vote my opinion. – WYSIWYG Jun 17 '19 at 20:15
  • @WYSIWYG Not all "What causes X" questions are equally broad. In the example you gave, diabetes is a group of diseases and many factors play a role. The aetiopathogenesis of calcific tendinopathy is much more narrow in scope. I think that inconsistent close vote decisions are deleterious for the website, since it means that questions might be closed subjectively and not according to clear rules. – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 17 '19 at 20:20
  • @FranckDernoncourt I agree with WYSIWYG. The problem is that if the answer is "Nope" it is impossible for someone to find a reference actually answering that. If the answer is "No, but X has found 1), Y has found 2), and Z has found 3)" since 2012, you've basically had someone write you a new review article; they should publish it instead of posting here. Only in the circumstance that there is a new canonical review that you are not aware of but exists as one of the 100 citations for that paper is there a sufficiently narrow answer for someone to post. – Bryan Krause Jun 17 '19 at 22:22
  • @BryanKrause "Only in the circumstance that there is a new canonical review that you are not aware [...] there a sufficiently narrow answer for someone to post" -> yes this is what I am looking for and this is why I wrote "Has the cause of calcific tendinopathy been more clearly determined since then?" in the question. – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 17 '19 at 22:51
  • @FranckDernoncourt The best advice I ever got in grad school was from a senior grad student at the time passing on advice he got from his advisor. She cautioned him to study questions where the outcome is interesting no matter what, to avoid getting stuck in a place where you have an answer but it doesn't mean anything. Similarly, a SE question that is probably unanswerable is not a good question: it ends up either with a bad answer or it lingers as a bad unanswered question. – Bryan Krause Jun 17 '19 at 22:52
  • @BryanKrause Then your close vote reason is different from WYSIWYG. If your reason is that "SE question that is probably unanswerable is", then 1) the study I mentioned is seven-year-old, science has progressed since then and there might be a clear answer by now 2) if experts in the field are aware that the question currently doesn't have any satisfying answer, then that's an answer in itself. – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 17 '19 at 22:56
  • @FranckDernoncourt No, I think the reason is the same: either it requires a too-broad answer, or it is not answerable, therefore it is too broad. I think the probability of "Only in the circumstance..." is sufficiently low to ignore entirely. – Bryan Krause Jun 17 '19 at 23:01
  • @BryanKrause How do you view "not answerable" as "too broad"? One example of answer is "study X published in 2018 showed that aetiopathogenesis of calcific tendinopathy is Y". Another example of answer is "study Z published in 2019 indicates that no consensus has been found so far" etc. The question is perfectly answerable. – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 17 '19 at 23:03
  • @FranckDernoncourt I disagree and I've already explained why. I won't argue this further here. – Bryan Krause Jun 17 '19 at 23:09
  • @BryanKrause the question is perfectly answerable as my previous comment illustrates – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 17 '19 at 23:09

0 Answers0