need help with your account or subscription? click here to email us (or see the contact page)
join telegramNEW! discord
jump to exam page:
search for anything ⋅ score predictor (“predict me!”)

Welcome to jatsyuk38’s page.
Contributor score: 2


Comments ...

 +0  visit this page (nbme21#23)
get full access to all contentbecome a member

doesn't IFN-gamma upregulate MHCII? Which would activate T lymphocytes to produce cytokines? I do get why macrophages is the better answer, but didn't understand what IL-1 had to do with anything...

get full access to all contentbecome a member




Subcomments ...

submitted by sunny(9), visit this page
get full access to all contentbecome a member

why is this not a cross sectional survey? ... since we are asking at a particular time

get full access to all contentbecome a member
drdoom  As Aristotle once quipped, “A ‘single-point in time’ doth not a cross-sectional study make.” The design of a cross-sectional study would not define “ahead of time” two cohorts (two groups); said another way, a cross-sectional design would not “split people into two groups.” In the design of a cross-sectional study there is only “one group”, and then you ask all members of that group some question (“Do you have asthma?”). At the end of a cross-sectional study, the authors will be able to make a statement like this: “We called 10,000 phone numbers with area code 415 at random and asked ‘Do you take Drug X?’ 500 responded ‘I don’t know’, 633 responded ‘Yes’, and 8,867 responded ’No’.” +19
castlblack  That is interesting. I think the question is phrased ambiguously. I interpreted the question stem to say that they called random people and sorted them into hemorrhagic stroke pts vs controls after the fact using an ORAL questionnaire. Therefore the question would be " Did you have a stroke?" Yes = 702 or no = 1376. And thus would be a cross-sectional study. I see now that the questionnaire must be paper and contacted from some unstated list of drug X recipients. +
jatsyuk38  Yea I thought the same thing you did. They could of randomly called people and asked "have you had a stroke" followed by "have you taken drug X" and to me that is cross sectional. Especially when most cohorts (at least in Q stems) have equal numbers of controls and those with disease and in this case they dont. But I think when they explicitly say "control subjects" you know it is cohort, as in cross sectional you get control sort of accidentely when they say "no, I haven't had a stroke" - sorry if this made things more confusing +


submitted by tinydoc(276), visit this page
get full access to all contentbecome a member

Hyperparathyroidism causing bone lesions is via Osteoblasts increasing RANK -L expression to bind to RANK on Osteoclasts and stimulating them ---> inc Bone Resorption

get full access to all contentbecome a member
pg32  Picked D despite understanding the above ^^ because IL-1 is also known as osteoclast acitivating factor... +8
plzhelp123  ^ I did the same, but it appears that IL-1 activates osteoclasts in multiple myeloma. Which makes sense as that is a neoplasm of immune cells which can produce interleukins. +
caitlyncloy  can anyone explain why this the answer is "PARACRINE" stimulation?? I rule out the correct answer because i was picturing RANK and RANK L binding, which is not paracrine?! +1
caitlyncloy  oh.. it seem RANK L is secreted to activate the clasts.. i was picturing it as RANKL was on the surface of the blast. reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOIBRJeetAs +1
makingstrides  If you can, I Would highly recommend looking at the sketchy pharm for this. It explains this well, in my opinion, and definitely helped me. +
jatsyuk38  Goljan I could've sworn said PTH stimulates osteoblasts to secrete IL-1 to activate osteoclasts. He also said estrogen prevents osteoporosis by inhibiting osteoblast release of IL-1...however there is also a UWorld question where it said RANK-L plays a more important role actor (over IL-1) in PTH mediated bone breakdown +1


submitted by wasabilateral(47), visit this page
get full access to all contentbecome a member

Syphilis pathogenesis is the inflammation and obliteration of the vasa vasorum (small blood vessels) that feeds bigger blood vessels like aorta, arteries, arterioles. It does not matter what the stage is, T. pallidum infects the vasa vasorum and, in the process, obliterates the nerves and blood vessels. This kills blood supply to those areas = ischemia but no pain (painless chancre). More localized in earlier stages, and in later stage, the spirochetes disseminate, so you have the aorta and spinal cord involvement but same pathogenesis. (Edit: Goljan explained this somewhere.)

get full access to all contentbecome a member
privatejoker  So is the heavily implied step-wise formation of Syphilis symptoms as presented in FA complete BS then? Why break it down into stages and have us learn it as such if this is not the case in real practice? +5
lilmonkey  Exactly, Goljan mentioned this in one of his audio lectures. All kinds of lesions in syphilis caused by vasculitis. +3
lovebug  I know it's silly question. but Could anyone give an why answer is lymphocyte and plasma cell not neutorphiles.? bc syphilis is a bacteria, not virus. +1
trazobone  @lovebug my guess is bc its a spirochete, so it doesn’t act like a normal bacteria. One of the screening test for syphilis is FTA Abs, so a proliferation in plasma cells makes sense. Then by deduction, if its able to affect plasma cells, it can do the same with lymphocytes. But this is me trying to logic everything together so. +1
jatsyuk38  May be worth noting that necrotizing granulomas can be found in the gummas of tertiary syphillis. Doesnt change the correct choice as onset was only 2 weeks +
unknown001  lol, i just love trazobone's comment. he's a smart dude +


submitted by lamhtu(139), visit this page
get full access to all contentbecome a member

Needing "higher concentrations" of the B6 for enzyme activity is another way of saying Km is higher since more is required for 1/2 vmax activity. Increased Km values result in 1/Km being smaller (closer to 0 on the x-axis), which is demonstrated in answer choice B.

A "normal" enzyme activity in the presence of higher B6 concentrations means that Vmax is not changing, but Km is.

get full access to all contentbecome a member
d_holles  In other words, Normal enzyme activity = Vmax Adding more B6 to a mutated enzyme will improve it back to normal (Vmax stays constant, so Km will decreased due to ↑ affinity of the enzyme). +3
jatsyuk38  ^^ THIS is the best explanation +
drdoom  @jatsyuk38 the comment or the subcomment? +
drdoom  oh, double caret = bump,bump = the comment (@lamhtu) +


search for anything NEW!