Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 4 / Biology C‑class
WikiProject iconNeurology has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology. If you can improve it, please do.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

More emphasis[edit]

More emphasis should be put on research of morphology and physiology of the nervous system. --Eleassar my talk 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree; most neurologists who do this nowadays possess other qualifications. The historical aspects of that might be of some interest. -Ikkyu2 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm looking into history right now. I'll see what it says. Newtonspeed 03:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undergraduate experience[edit]

I'm changing that part about some US medical schools admitting students after 2 years of undergraduate. I've never heard of any such schools, no such schools are cited, and even if it's true it is of vanishing significance to anyone who wants to know about the education required to become a neurologist. For all intents and purposes, it takes 12 years of post-secondary education to become a neurologist, and the article should reflect that. (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am of the opinion that the emphasis on educational length should lie in how long it takes to be a neurologist after completing medical school. Everyone know the criteria for getting admitted to and how long this education is in it self, so the more interesting part here is how long it takes to specialize in neurology and thus become a neurologist. In contrast to cite ones total school path... eg. 25 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harder to help[edit]

Neurologists find it more difficult to help those whose symptoms are not attributable to organic disease: PMC 1738867. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MRI as a nuclear medicine technique???[edit]

That is incorrect, nuclear medicine is another specialty altogether and does not use MRI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elikarag (talkcontribs) 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image is too larger for the primary page[edit]

The GIF image is to large (~5Mb) to have on at page - rather reffer to it, so people can chose to view it themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Field of work[edit]

Neurology#Field of work needs a cleanup. The list of "major" conditions has no evident structure, redundant content, and perhaps should be replaced by a link to Category:Neurology. This is the section where the difference between a neurologist and a neurosurgeon, and how these specialties work together, should be explained. --Una Smith (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

good point - it is simply a smaller list than that found at the page list of neurological disorders. I'll change it. Amaher (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Neurology a part of Phisiology ?[edit]

If Neurology is the studying of the nerves and Phisiology is the studying of the phisical part of living creatures. Then doesn't Neurology become a sub-category of Phyisiology ? Alan347 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neurology as the studying of the Nervous System[edit]

Does Neurology study the nervous system per se. or only its disorders ?

" is a medical specialty dealing with disorders of the nervous system. Specifically, it deals with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of disease involving the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems, "


" is a medical specialty dealing with the nervous system. It also deals deals with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of disease involving the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems, "

Thanks, Alan347 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neurology is a branch of medicine -- the term for the study of the nervous system is neuroscience. The general public frequently confuses the two, but people in the fields are very consistent in using the words this way. Looie496 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had the same question. I accept your response, but I think it should be included in the article. Perhaps a sentence (at the end of the intro?) such as "Neurology is the medical application of neuroscience which is the (general?) study of the nervous system." Dirac66 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is also the study of the nervous system and form and function:

neurology (njʊˈrɒlədʒɪ)

the study of the anatomy, physiology, and diseases of the nervous system

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Cite This Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmitchell (talkcontribs) 10:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page should generalize neurology as a study of the nervous system. However, there is too much about neurologists and their qualifications. Instead of focusing on a single thing that can easily have a page of its own (if not already) there should be less on neurologists and more on the different studies and branches of neurology, as well as recent advances in neuroscience. Eeshprince (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The study of the nervous system is neuroscience. Neurology is specifically a branch of medicine. The two are frequently confused, but that doesn't mean that we should do it. Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made this distinction more clear by moving the line about it earlier in the introduction Skiingxmoose (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have removed the average salary figure as it is not cited and is very ambigous. The salary varies greatly from country to country, among other things. -- (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neurology vs. Psychiatry[edit]

With all due respect for Dr. Joseph Martin, his assertion "And the fact [sic] that the brain and mind are one makes the separation artificial anyway", cited in this article, seems to be based on personal belief, rather than hard scientific facts, and therefore it has no place in an article dealing with science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word mind has many meanings so I think it does not have "hard scientific facts" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcascas (talkcontribs) 09:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Cosmetic" Neurology[edit]

I think this title/term should be changed (to "Neurological enhancement" or "Neurology for enhancement purposes" or "Augmentative neurology", for example). The word "cosmetic" refers to appearances, while the topic itself is about improving brain function. If someone had severe depression, would we consider that a "cosmetic" problem? --Rbwilli (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Affinity with detective novels[edit]

doi:10.1136/practneurol-2013-000597 - quite an overlap, quoting Conan Doyle and Sacks. JFW | T@lk 16:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It would be interesting to know about training in neurology by country. Maybe someone with knowledge about opening new pages and interest in neurology could do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcascas (talkcontribs) 09:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like many WikiPedia articles about medical specialties, we are told that American neurologists start off with a four year college degree followed by a four year MD course. This obscures the fact that the compulsory pre-medical courses in college are at first or second year level and at the same level as would be studied at school in countries like England, France and Germany. The rest of the college course is optional for an aspiring doctor and does not contribute to medical education.
This exaggeration of the university element serves also to take readers' eyes off the brevity of American clinical training compared to the rest of the world, and American neurologists' limited exposure to internal medicine. This is not compensated for by a greater psychiatric background: despite there being a combined certifying board for diplomas in neurology and psychiatry, there is little overlap in training between the streams.
The section about British training absurdly states that medical school takes five to nine years. When most students spent their first year on physics, chemistry and biology, six years was the norm, but now that they have to get that out of the way at school first, five years is standard for an MB ChB or equivalent. Nine years could mean doing an extra year for an honours BSc in one of the sciences, followed by three years doing a PhD: that should not all be counted as medical education. Graduates can take a shortened, more intensive four year course for the same medical degree, but since their original degree could be in anything else, the length of the first degree should not count as medical education. NRPanikker (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historical Section[edit]

To quote the Wikiproject Neuroscience page, "The history of neuroscience will also be an area of focus. The progress of theories and ideas is important to understanding current scientific thinking. This includes "History" sections in articles, biography articles, articles on refuted theories, and articles about historical institutions. For people interested specifically in contributing to the history of neuroscience content, visit this page." I think one hugely important thing this article is lacking is a section on the history of the practice of neurology. We would need to answer the questions: when did neurology develop as a field? who are the founders of the field? and when did it enter mainstream culture? Skiingxmoose (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

vs. Neuroradiology[edit]

How does it relate to neuroradiology? —DIV ( (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]