NBME Answers : mellowpenguins's page

Subcomments ...

submitted by yotsubato(1208), visit this page

get full access to all content ⋅ become a member

Was it just me, or did "age at onset in years" appear RIGHT above the number of patients, rather than the mean. Which confused me for a good 3 minutes.

get full access to all content ⋅ become a member

fulminant_life Definitely was the same for me. I was so confused for like 5 mins +21

d_holles dude i almost didn't get the question bc of this ... i thought the age of onset was the actual age of onset (36) +9

mellowpenguins Are you serious. NBME strikes again with shitty formatting. +10

yex OMG!! Now I just realized that. Super confused and also thought onset of age was 36. :-/ +8

monkey what is 36 supposed to be? +1

thomasburton Think the number of people in that group +5

paulkarr Yup...was looking at it for a good 3 min before just doing the "fuck it..it's gotta be 99" +6

arcanumm Age of Onset is the Title of the table, which I didn't figure out until after exam was over. What terrible formatting. +4

veryhungrycaterpillar This is straight up tatti. I was like what muscular dystrophy is showing up with an almost biphasic age of onset between adolescence and 30s? Fucked it up. +

handsome how did you get the 99 what is your solution ? hehe +