Talk:Biocompatibility

Untitled

Maybe since there are at least two definitions of biocompatibility this article should have a disambiguationarticle? //BedrupsBaneman

Merger

I would say do NOT merge the articles on biocompatibility and biocompatible material. For three reasons: 1. There are no biocompatible materials. See biocompatibility. So the article biocompatible material should be deleted or renamed. 2. The scope of an article on materials to be used for biomedical devices (biomaterials) is quite a lot as it is. 3. They (biomaterial and biocompatility) have their own specific meaning. Benkeboy 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Introduction/definition

This article begins with an definition, then refutes it without citing sources, with what seems to me to be a personal agenda. I have added tags which I feel are appropriate in this case. Unfortunatly I do not have enough knowledge in this subject to re-write it. For example "The critique againts this definition..." has no context as to who critiques it. If it is totally disputed by the scientific community, don't put that definition in. If only a handfull disagree with it, the dispute should not be presented as fact. The introduction should state the widly accepted definition of biocompatability, and if that definition is disputed, such a critique should go in the body of the article. In fact, I'll move it there now.

Now I have expanded the introduction to make the context a bit more clear. I have also added in-text links to external sources, as well as added reference and comments on a new article by Williams, 2008. The in-text referencing provided by wikipedia sucks (in-text and actual list of reference is completely independent... think about that for a second ... ) so I prefer to use (name, year) since it is much easier to edit and would more often not lead to mistakes! Benkeboy (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity - The article should make clear that the terms "biocompatibility", "biocompatible material" and their derivatives are ambiguous, not only in the scientific community but in the general population as well. It should be clearly stated that there are not "biocompatible" materials, and that "biocompatibility" does not exist as it is something only showed in the clinical setting and there is not a proper definition for it - what is an appropriate cell response? are we talking about cell toxicity? if so, how do you definite toxicity and how do you measure it? does an appropriate cell response refers to a positive or to a negative interaction? if so, what type of interaction is it? are we refering to an increase in cell proliferation or cell viability, to a reduction in inflammation or to a lack of a foreign body response?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.227.23.58 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What?

This article talks quite a bit, but doesn't seem to be saying very much. It is badly in need of a subject-matter expert that has the ability to rewrite it in a manner that is targeted at the general populace. As it is now, it's a slice of a debate between members of the same profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.209.142 (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I started tidying this up, but I gave up when I realised that it really only had one source. While I am in the biological sciences, this is not my field so i marked it as needing expansion Ethidium (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is Professor Williams? His credentials certifying him as the authority on the definition of "biocompatibility" are never clarified.209.76.214.200 (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article definitely needs more sources, rather than simply choosing one source and fêting that person as "an authority" Ethidium (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition Revision

I am a student at NJIT and I was assigned to revise a Wikipedia article either by revising a definition or revising a section. I decided to revise this definition since there are multiple definitions that can cause some confusion. Also I am capable of revising this definition because I am currently studying to become a biomedical engineer and I feel what I have learned throughout my 3 years in college will aid in my revision. I will use credible and reliable sources to back my revision of biocompatibility. I am looking for permission from the Wikipedia community and Dr. James Lipuma to apply my changes.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biocompatibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050206100618/http://www.esb2005.it:80/satellite.html to http://www.esb2005.it/satellite.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)