New Zealand Brain Research Institute , Christchurch , New Zealand ; Department of Medicine, University of Otago , Christchurch , New Zealand.
PeerJ. 2013 Apr 16;1:e67. doi: 10.7717/peerj.67. Print 2013.
There has been long-standing debate over whether use of the possessive form of the names of eponymous neurological disorders should be abandoned. Which view has actually predominated in practice? We empirically assessed current and historical usage in the scientific literature. The PubMed database was queried for the percentage of titles published each year from 1960-2012 which contained the possessive form of Parkinson's (PD), Alzheimer's (AD), Huntington's (HD), Wilson's (WD), and Gaucher's (GD) diseases (e.g. Huntington's disease or chorea vs Huntington disease or chorea). Down syndrome (DS), well known for its changes in terminology, was used as a reference. The possessive form was nearly universal in all conditions from 1960 until the early 1970s. In both DS and GD it then declined at an approximately constant rate of 2 percentage points per year to drop below 15%. The possessive forms of both PD and AD began to decline at the same time but stabilised and have since remained above 80%, with a similar but more volatile pattern in HD. WD, meanwhile, is intermediate between the DS/GD and PD/AD/HD patterns, with a slower decline to its current value of approximately 60%. Declining possessive form usage in GD and DS papers has been remarkably uniform over time and has nearly reached completion. PD and AD appear stable in remaining predominantly possessive. The larger volume of papers published in those fields and their possibly greater public recognition and involvement may make that unlikely to change in the short-term. In a secondary analysis restricted to PD, we found that practices have switched dramatically several times in each of three US-published general neurology journals. Meanwhile, in two UK-published journals, and in the specialist title "Movement Disorders", the possessive form has been maintained consistently. The use of eponyms in neurology shows systematic variation across time, disorders, and journals.
长期以来,人们一直争论是否应该放弃使用以人名命名的神经紊乱疾病的所有格形式。在实践中,哪种观点实际上占主导地位?我们通过实证评估了科学文献中当前和历史上的使用情况。我们在 PubMed 数据库中查询了 1960 年至 2012 年每年发表的标题中包含帕金森病 (PD)、阿尔茨海默病 (AD)、亨廷顿病 (HD)、威尔逊病 (WD) 和戈谢病 (GD) 疾病所有格形式的比例(例如亨廷顿病或舞蹈症与亨廷顿病或舞蹈症)。唐氏综合征(DS)以其术语变化而闻名,被用作参考。从 1960 年到 20 世纪 70 年代初,所有疾病的所有格形式几乎都是通用的。在 DS 和 GD 中,每年大约以 2 个百分点的速度下降,降至 15%以下。PD 和 AD 的所有格形式同时开始下降,但稳定下来,此后一直保持在 80%以上,HD 则呈现出类似但更不稳定的模式。与此同时,WD 处于 DS/GD 和 PD/AD/HD 模式之间,下降速度较慢,目前约为 60%。GD 和 DS 论文中所有格形式的使用减少在时间上一直非常一致,几乎已经完成。PD 和 AD 似乎在剩余的主要是所有格形式的情况下保持稳定。这些领域发表的论文数量较大,并且可能得到了更大的公众认可和参与,这使得这种情况在短期内不太可能改变。在一项仅限于 PD 的二次分析中,我们发现,在三家美国出版的普通神经病学杂志中,每种杂志的实践都发生了几次戏剧性的转变。与此同时,在两家英国出版的杂志和专业杂志《运动障碍》中,所有格形式一直保持一致。神经病学中使用以人名命名的方式随着时间、疾病和期刊的不同而发生系统变化。