invite friends ⋅ share via emailtwitter
support the site ⋅ become a member ⋅ unscramble the egg
free120  nbme24  nbme23  nbme22  nbme21  nbme20  nbme19  nbme18  nbme17  nbme16  nbme15  nbme13 
Welcome to hhsuperhigh’s page.
Contributor score: 22


Comments ...

 +7  (nbme23#19)

"His friends believe there may have been drugs at the party", period. lmao...

aisel1787  ahahaha +
qball  What a snitch +5
bend_nbme_over  Good thing they were at the ED cause that friend is gonna need some stitches +

 +1  (nbme23#33)

My guess for not choosing PPI is because the duration of drug-using. PPI increases the risk of C. diff by long-term using which considered as over 1 year of using. This pt should have used the second drug less than 4 weeks according to the question. So PPI is unlikely to cause C. diff diarrhea within this short period of usage, especially when this pt is not immunocompromised, or using antibiotics.


 +0  (nbme24#24)

The diet is prescribed, so no need to refer to dietician anymore. It is a case of the patient non-compliance of diet. But why can't advise the parents to stop bickering?

therealslimshady  I remember Boards and Beyond said that you never want to pick any statements that sound "scolding", plus it couldn't be much help to just say "stop arguing", it's better to find out information on what's causing the arguing so that you can stop it entirely, which choice B will allow you to do. +
tyrionwill  stress is the thing to worse the condition of DM, and will be better after being seen, comforted, and accepted. +

 +1  (nbme20#26)
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

sihT si ohw my ibanr dteraf ihlwe I wsa ignod htis ..ensuit.o.q I neawtd ot shcooe BTG c,dificeney tub I tpke ingknhti that fi BTG si ,tendeicif atht smnea rethe rea less or on ibnndgi pesonrti in het loodb. ndA who acn eth refe T4 be o?mraln lotuSh'dn rfee 4T eeicnsra if eehtr erwe sles 4T ignbdni ?rtoinep ...

adong  free T4 wouldn't increase because it would be sensed by the pituitary and TSH would drop until free T4 normalizes +2




Subcomments ...

submitted by colonelred_(86),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

riAbtltubate krsi = nciedcnei in dexepos – deicncnie ni ueenopsdx

= 0,0/0301 mreso)ks( - 0/030,03 ms)neoskr(no
= .300 - .100
= .020 (so eht abttrutalieb irsk si btuao )%2

pyigApln ti to a puplantoio of :001,00

= 0.20 * 1,0000
= 200

charcot_bouchard  What if i tell you this is a ques of Attributable risk % in exposed? AR= 0.02 / IR in exposed (30/1000) = 0.6667 30 case in 1000. So 300 case in 10,000 0.6667 x 300 = 200 or in another word 66% cases of 100 lung cancer cases in smokers is actually due to smoking. so in 300 cases of smokers 200 is actually due to smoking +4  
charcot_bouchard  This is a mind fuck. Lemme tell u guys if any consolation while doing the ques during test i did it with AR = 0.02; NNH = 1/0.02 = 50. 50 persons smoke to cause 1 cancer. 10K smoke to cause 200 cancer. +1  
ls3076  Sorry if this is a stupid question. Why is it incorrect to simply apply the same proportion (30 cancer per 1000 smokers) to 10,000 smokers? +1  
krewfoo99  @is3076 Thats exactly what is did. I still dont understand how that is wrong. But i guess they want us to think about it in terms of AR +  
hhsuperhigh  @Is3076 and @Krewfoo99, If a person doesn't smoke, the natural risk of getting lung cancer is 30/3000=1%. The smoker's risk is 30/1000=3%. This 3% is not purely contributed by smoking, but mixed with the natural risk. So for calculating the pure contribution made by smoking, you should use 3%-1% which is 2%. And this 2% is the pure contribution of smoking. Not all smokers get lung cancer, the same thing, not all lung cancer among smokers are attributed by smoking. They may get lung cancer anyway despite smoking or not. +9  


submitted by sugaplum(235),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

ishT is aapyrtpnle nelncgaiot irtdohy igndinb blliungo ecyciidenf

niniygrnix-"Toehdb gibulnol ecinefdiyc — bxynnireoiThding- ullginbo G)TB( edicnyfeci is cahcazditreer by lwo uerms ttalo 4T tub molnar eefr T4 dan S;HT eth agdinossi si rnfoemdic yb rmenigsua BTG tistenocnc.roan ehseT stfnnia ehav ralomn rdihyot nciutfon dan do tno qreeuir tmnter.a"te - *nd'euot atpatc fidn in A,F maybe ti si in ehret ohme?wrese

hhsuperhigh  The only thing I can relate to this is FA P331 " TBG in pregnancy, OCP use (estrogen increases TBG) increases total T3/T4", so here is the opposite situation, which TBG decreases, and total T3/T4 decreases... +4  
jawnmeechell  Goljan talks about this (around 33 mins into his endocrine lecture) in relation to increased androgens causing decreased TBG +2