No verbatim copy/pasting
UWorld QID1218 agrees w/ this change
@Ahmed7 @thomas.holmes @Sameem @zarathustra @NiceJewishBoy @shmuelsash - FA23 also supports, not sure about wording though
activates macrophages to become epithelioid… i dont think we need to specify “later”
Agree with @Ahmed7
fixed up wording (saying activates macrophages to become x still makes it seem as though IFN-y causes differentiation to my reading) and removed addition to extra as it was not needed
@anking-maintainers wording feels super clunky, any thoughts?
Reading this again… do we even need to make this change? Isn’t this sort of the same thing being said before and after?
The difference is subtle (I agree it could still be interpreted as the exact same as the original, and probably would be by anyone just reviewing the card/ not learning it for the first time).
I’m not sure the change is obvious enough.
Maybe “which initiates the process of macrophage differentiation into…”
It’s semantics, agree with @Ahmed7’s both, first and second comment.
Like others have said, it’s a subtle difference that I’m not sure would translate to much benefit. Fine with rejecting if others don’t like my edit above
Edited suggestion. I think this is a simple fix that makes it more technically correct without being hard to read, vote if ya like it
I understand that the newer version makes more sense, the wording is just off and might make users more confused rather than understand it more.
Original: macrophages are converted to epitheliod histocytes
New: Macrophages are activated which then get converted to epitheliod histiocytes
How about
…Activates macrophages to form epith…?
Think this works
Don’t think Extra needs “then” in it. You’ve already established timeline in the Text field. I feel like the Extra is providing clarity on HOW rather than describing the timing and order. Unless I’m missing something.
Current: "Activated macrophages then release cytokines…
Recommended: “Activated macrophages release cytokines…”
I like @Ahmed7’s recommended phrasing on the Text.
I think the original card is fine. The edit makes it unnecessarily complicated unless there’s a specific UWorld or AMBOSS question that tests it to this level of detail. Do not support
Given the clarity in the illustration maybe we reject for now? and then revisit the wording if this suggestion is made again?