share email twitter ⋅ join discord whatsapp(2ck)
free120  nbme24  nbme23  nbme22  nbme21  nbme20  nbme19  nbme18  nbme17  nbme16  nbme15  nbme13 
Welcome to sacredazn’s page.
Contributor score: 80


Comments ...

 +55  (nbme22#5)
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

hTe ncctpeo si a onucdtloev wya of ankigs if you nwke how DJV bmnoaotiecrni rwk,os ihcwh si htat it si llaatucy na meplxae of nigrelta eht DNA of eht B/T pyymohtec.l

rteuSohn btlo chqeetniu: oS whne teyh eus a eborp igaasnt smeo irgoen, adn uutgoptnti a szei fo .15 bk ro 6 bk, sthi si ligeltn uoy the zise fo hte NAD fragnemt ni heca ecll so(tn’de tmarte if ehty ysa J oberp ro stncoant rogein ,bopre t’eehry jsut gnaysi hre’ety ngtteaigr semo eiuotldnec esueqcen fnuod in the Ig cCsoT/uRl tabe cahni ucslo rpvescietely fro BT/ el)l.sc

I hktni eht onsicfugn rtpa culod eb wrdiennog hwo oyu ownk rhwhtee uo’ery rtlypa uhhrgot enagrmrrnaete arsw(en ocsecih B ruht D) or if it ’nhast ueccdorr at all yet c(rtrceo rwn.aes) r,Hee hte cectopn si ahtt B sellc gedorun D)(JV etararnegermn ni the bone worm,ar wihel T llsce od ti in eth s,ythmu dna ti lla npahsep at cno.e So a malpas llec in teh obdol ilke ni pteiluMl aymolMe dwuol aveh yulfl goduerenn mcrooibaneit,n leiwh a T lcel in eht obdol dulco ehiert be lylfu deudctea ad(n vhea hiesinfd VDJ ioinnoceamtb)r ro mtreiuma stnah(’ rtseatd JD.V)

Sneic teh T clle gene was 6 bk and ltyneeidif grbige ahnt the .51 bk e,gen het T ellc tashn’ oerdnngeu anrtbocnoimie ty.e

trichotillomaniac  very nice explanation! +27
nwinkelmann  This was awesome! Made so much sense and hopefully I will be able to think that critically about questions in the future (because I NEVER would have come up with this on my own, hah). +4
eacv  OMG! THANK YOU. I DIDNT KNOW ANYTHING about this!! Hope this is not testesd on real examen :p +4
ajss  wow! this explanation was awesome! thanks! +
mrglass  Also the T-cell V-D-J segments are not the same as the B-cell V-D-J segments. Therefore a B-cell J segment southern blot would look for whether the B-cell site VDJ segment in a T-cell, which would always non-rearranged. +6
mynamejeff  Thank you! So is this because multiple myeloma produces excessive monoclonal light chain Ig? Is this the 1.5 kb gene? Whereas, T-cells that have not gone through differentiation yet and their J region includes everything (VDJ) vs. just VJ in the light chain? (FA 2020 pg 104) +
peridot  This explanation is amazing! However, to fully understand another step of what the question is getting at, please take a look at @highyieldboardswards's and/or @mrglass' explanation as well - a very important addition!! +




Subcomments ...

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

Why swtn’a eth atleb hoeung ot treeedinm avenlreecp in eht eerlnag ponauo?lpit

sacredazn  For the case control question, it’s taking that principle that you can’t use case control studies to calculate relative risk and applying it to prevalence. Basically with case control studies we start by saying okay, I’m going to find 200 people with sinusitis and 400 without. Then, you go back and look at the number exposed/unexposed and calculate the odds ratio. So you can’t use case controls to calculate prevalence because it all depends on how many cases you picked in the first place. Might make more sense to think about it with a rare cancer like craniopharyngioma or something- let’s say you chose 10 cases and 10 controls and wanted to look at how many people smoked. It wouldn’t make sense to then say the prevalance of craniopharyngioma is 10/20 = 50%. +20  
dr_trazobone69  Thank you, that makes a lot of sense! So we can use relative risk (cohort studies) to calculate prevalence? +  
sacredazn  @trazobone Hmm I think the wording would be key, you could use a prospective cohort to calculate incidence, but you wouldn’t be able to find prevalence of the gen population unless you had more info. I think the concept is that really to calculate prevalence you need a proper ecologic study looking at population-level data. The way it was worded in the question was tricky though lol since when has “cannot be determined from the info given” ever been a right answer. +5  
nwinkelmann  @sacredazn thank you! this was the best explanation to use the rare disease comparison. Made everything make so much sense and hopefully I'll actually just remember it now, instead of learning the factoid and failing to recall it all the time. +1  
hyperfukus  i guess this makes sense but i don't understand why we are asked to calculate it from tables like this then? is there more info in those? +  
hello  @hyperfukus The table was given because that a 22 table is typically what you do see regarding data for case-control studies. If the 22 table wasn't include, then literally everytone would pick Choice "E" as the correct answer b/c you can't calculate something without being provided numbers. The difference in including the data-table is that 1. again, you need to report a 22 table because that is typically what you will see regarding data for a case-control study and 2. by including the 22 table, it actually tests if the test-taker realized that the data in the 2*2 table does not help at all with calculating prevalence-- because case-control studies NEVER report on prevalence. +  


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

hWy tnwas’ het labet hueong ot meeidrent aeenlcvrep ni eth areglen a?oilopunpt

sacredazn  For the case control question, it’s taking that principle that you can’t use case control studies to calculate relative risk and applying it to prevalence. Basically with case control studies we start by saying okay, I’m going to find 200 people with sinusitis and 400 without. Then, you go back and look at the number exposed/unexposed and calculate the odds ratio. So you can’t use case controls to calculate prevalence because it all depends on how many cases you picked in the first place. Might make more sense to think about it with a rare cancer like craniopharyngioma or something- let’s say you chose 10 cases and 10 controls and wanted to look at how many people smoked. It wouldn’t make sense to then say the prevalance of craniopharyngioma is 10/20 = 50%. +20  
dr_trazobone69  Thank you, that makes a lot of sense! So we can use relative risk (cohort studies) to calculate prevalence? +  
sacredazn  @trazobone Hmm I think the wording would be key, you could use a prospective cohort to calculate incidence, but you wouldn’t be able to find prevalence of the gen population unless you had more info. I think the concept is that really to calculate prevalence you need a proper ecologic study looking at population-level data. The way it was worded in the question was tricky though lol since when has “cannot be determined from the info given” ever been a right answer. +5  
nwinkelmann  @sacredazn thank you! this was the best explanation to use the rare disease comparison. Made everything make so much sense and hopefully I'll actually just remember it now, instead of learning the factoid and failing to recall it all the time. +1  
hyperfukus  i guess this makes sense but i don't understand why we are asked to calculate it from tables like this then? is there more info in those? +  
hello  @hyperfukus The table was given because that a 22 table is typically what you do see regarding data for case-control studies. If the 22 table wasn't include, then literally everytone would pick Choice "E" as the correct answer b/c you can't calculate something without being provided numbers. The difference in including the data-table is that 1. again, you need to report a 22 table because that is typically what you will see regarding data for a case-control study and 2. by including the 22 table, it actually tests if the test-taker realized that the data in the 2*2 table does not help at all with calculating prevalence-- because case-control studies NEVER report on prevalence. +