share email twitter ⋅ join discord whatsapp(2ck)
Free 120  NBME 24  NBME 23  NBME 22  NBME 21  NBME 20  NBME 19  NBME 18  NBME 17  NBME 16  NBME 15  NBME 13 
introducing : the “predict me” score predictor NEW!
Welcome to 69_nbme_420’s page.
Contributor score: 24


Comments ...

 +6  (free120#1)

Aminoglycosides (Which inhibits 30S) are coupled with cell wall active agents - e.g. Penicillins, Vancomycin

(Sketchy Reference on Aminoglycoside Sketch: Beta-lactam bomb!!)





Subcomments ...

unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

kiSn opidsrve tlunsoaiin dna veesntpr etah .slso siTh eanttpsi' obyd iwll mcpeenaots rfo acrseidne rtea fo taeh slos by nineiacrgs btcmeaiol ae.rt

davidw  This is directly from Goljan I) Hypovolemic shock may occur due to loss of plasma from the burn surface (refer to Chapter 5). • Loss of protein from the plasma loss may result in generalized pitting edema. II) Infection of the wound site and sepsis may occur. (a) Sepsis due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the most common cause of infection in burn patients. (b) Other pathogens include methicillin-resistant S. aureus and Candida species. (3) Curling ulcers may occur in the proximal duodenum (refer to Chapter 18). (4) Hypermetabolic syndrome may occur if >40% of the body surface is burned. +12  
yex  Can someone explain why is it not increased ECF? +23  
charcot_bouchard  i picked same. Increased ECF but cant remember why. Can you explain WHY it is increased ECF? what was ur reasoning +2  
isotopes  Burns would lead to a decrease in ECF because the protection from fluid loss is absent; it can lead to shock. :) +2  
tinydoc  My reasoning behind picking ↑ ECV was that your losing fluid but not electrolytes with the burn ⇒ the ecv would have increased osmolarity, so the fluid from the ICV would be pushed the the ECV. It made sense to me at the time. I guess technically its wrong because the loss of fluids and the gain of fluids would amount to pretty much the same thing. But the insulation and heat loss thing makes sense I guess. +  
yex  Increased ECF, bc I was thinking about the edema formation.... :-/ +3  
atbangura  I picked increased ECF because burns increase the capillary permeability coefficient, but now that I am going over it I realized that increasing the permeability would only transfer plasma volume to the interstitial volume, which are both a part of the ECF so therefore ECF would not change. SMH +5  
aisel1787  thanks +  
69_nbme_420  Burns (and Diarrhea) cause ISOsmotic volume contraction; Costanzo BRS Physio +  
tiagob  in severe burned patient, also has increased fluid in third spacing or interstitial (leading EDEMA). Different extracellular space is interstitial and vascular +  
peridot  I also wanted to add, another huge job of the skin is to prevent loss of fluid. Burn patients are easily dehydrated because they've lost that barrier. This helped me lean away from increased ECV - despite the edema (from one compartment to another) as others have mentioned above, there is a loss in overall ECV due to evaporation from body. +  


submitted by welpdedelp(225),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

tI was a snrgoeiruuF eo-d&sgbi;-t sbasets.ios uiosnuerrgF ibedso are dlevbeie to eb fdorme yb rehaogspcam thta heav ahpygtoesocd and peattedmt to egdsit the bf.sier

almondbreeze  info about ferruginous bodies being mf can't be found on FA/UW :'( they just say it's 'material' +  
taediggity  FA 2020 677, FA 2019 659... mf?? mofos?? +3  
69_nbme_420  Just to add: The question asks what cell type initiated the Fibrosis → Alveolar macrophages engulf the particles and induce fibrosis (same pathophys for all Pneumoconiosis). Pathoma 2019 Pg 92 +7  


submitted by usmile1(109),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

fI yuo olko ta lwoUrd uiosnetq DI 22919 it sha a dwrunoefl lpeniaaotnx rfo .htsi fI yhet aehsr het smae opsepit,e ti wlli ehva a ddwowrna l.Iso fpe tehy haser noen fo the sema set,poepi eth inel liwl eb loaonrhzit scoras het rapgh cidg(iintna on eachgn as het uamton fo Y daedd ains)rcees

eacv  omg YES!! thanks Uworld I got it correct! exactly this qx asked the exact opposite thing! Hahaha I loved it !! +8  
pg32  Even after reading the UWorld explanation, I am still not sure how the answer that reads, "Protein Y expresses all of the epitopes expressed by protein X, but protein X does not..." is incorrect. Based on the graph, I don't see a way we can rule out that answer choice and it sounds more likely than both X and Y having the EXACT SAME epitopes. Can anyone explain? What would the graph look like if the quoted answer choice was correct? +2  
69_nbme_420  If you make up an example with numbers, it really helps! “Protein Y expresses all of the epitopes expressed by X, but protein X does not express all of epitopes expressed by Protein Y.” If we say protein Y has epitopes 1, 2, and 3. Then Protein X has epitopes 1 and 3. Then we can clearly see the relationship the AMOUNT of Y added relative to X bound would NOT be linear. Stated another way – we need an exponentially more amount of Y to COMPLETELY unbind X and therefore there would not be a one to one depiction in the graph Similar logic applies for the answer choice that states "protein X expresses all of the epitopes expressed by protein Y, but protein Y does not express all of the epitopes expressed by protein X. E.g. If protein Y has epitopes 1 and 2. And protein X has epitopes 1, 2, and 3. Here again, we have satisfied the answer choices condition, and no matter how much we increase protein Y, protein X will still have epitope 3 bound in this case. +4  
69_nbme_420  Just to clarify for the first scenario: We have 3 epitopes on Y, and 2 epitopes on X. That means, assuming the epitopes are all present in equal amounts, if I add 300 grams of protein Y to the solution - only 200 grams will bind protein X. AND ONLY 200 grams of protein X can be unbound. Hope the numbers help! +  
fruitkebabs  For anybody still stuck on "Protein Y expresses all of the epitopes expressed by protein X, but protein X does not," although this statement may be true, there is not enough information in the question to prove this. We know for fact that because the Amount of labeled X bound reaches 0, at the very least, protein X and Y express the same epitopes since at a certain concentration, Y is able to completely displace all X from the system. This doesn't exclude the possibility that there may be extra epitopes on Y, but it doesn't prove it either. +2  


submitted by usmile1(109),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

If uyo kolo ta rwodlU uoqisent DI 29192 it sah a deuolwnfr ipanxlotnae for hits. I f tyeh ahrse eht amse t,oepisep ti ilwl aehv a rwnaowdd opfl I.es etyh rshae nneo of the msea o,estppei het elin wlli be izrhaotnol acsosr eth arghp g(iicntadin no gacenh as teh nuatmo fo Y dadde sneei)csar

eacv  omg YES!! thanks Uworld I got it correct! exactly this qx asked the exact opposite thing! Hahaha I loved it !! +8  
pg32  Even after reading the UWorld explanation, I am still not sure how the answer that reads, "Protein Y expresses all of the epitopes expressed by protein X, but protein X does not..." is incorrect. Based on the graph, I don't see a way we can rule out that answer choice and it sounds more likely than both X and Y having the EXACT SAME epitopes. Can anyone explain? What would the graph look like if the quoted answer choice was correct? +2  
69_nbme_420  If you make up an example with numbers, it really helps! “Protein Y expresses all of the epitopes expressed by X, but protein X does not express all of epitopes expressed by Protein Y.” If we say protein Y has epitopes 1, 2, and 3. Then Protein X has epitopes 1 and 3. Then we can clearly see the relationship the AMOUNT of Y added relative to X bound would NOT be linear. Stated another way – we need an exponentially more amount of Y to COMPLETELY unbind X and therefore there would not be a one to one depiction in the graph Similar logic applies for the answer choice that states "protein X expresses all of the epitopes expressed by protein Y, but protein Y does not express all of the epitopes expressed by protein X. E.g. If protein Y has epitopes 1 and 2. And protein X has epitopes 1, 2, and 3. Here again, we have satisfied the answer choices condition, and no matter how much we increase protein Y, protein X will still have epitope 3 bound in this case. +4  
69_nbme_420  Just to clarify for the first scenario: We have 3 epitopes on Y, and 2 epitopes on X. That means, assuming the epitopes are all present in equal amounts, if I add 300 grams of protein Y to the solution - only 200 grams will bind protein X. AND ONLY 200 grams of protein X can be unbound. Hope the numbers help! +  
fruitkebabs  For anybody still stuck on "Protein Y expresses all of the epitopes expressed by protein X, but protein X does not," although this statement may be true, there is not enough information in the question to prove this. We know for fact that because the Amount of labeled X bound reaches 0, at the very least, protein X and Y express the same epitopes since at a certain concentration, Y is able to completely displace all X from the system. This doesn't exclude the possibility that there may be extra epitopes on Y, but it doesn't prove it either. +2  


submitted by neonem(568),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

etottxeaehrM dowlu be a drgu of ceihco for pioasssri rcyateorfr ot paticol mcersa adn gtilh thrpya;e nsiiibth ofdidtaerholy ecsaruted in oedrr to acdseere ksni lcle ooelnfiitprra nda cureed otamyaifmrnl soeeprns.

69_nbme_420  Cyclosporine can also be used to treat Psoriasis (NOT cyclophosphamide - ans B) +7  
len49  Drugs that can be used for psoriasis include cyclosporine, MTX, TNF-alpha inhibitors including Etanercept, lnfliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab according to FA +2  
medstudent  Kinda summed up in the index - p 791 2nd row halfway down +2  
lovebug  as We all know, 1st line therapy of psoriasis is topical corticosteroid, Vit.D analog (Vit.D inhibits keratinocyte proliferation and stimulates keratinocyte differentiation. +