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 usmlecrasher’s page.
Contributor score: 1

Comments ...

 -1  (nbme20#36)
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

c edteipp = dnuonegeso uisnlni , low c ipepedt + lwo boldo luogsce = gouenesxo .ilnsiun ryve esmpli

Subcomments ...

submitted by hayayah(1081),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

siivyienttS tsest are dues orf csr.egenni ctiySpeciif ssett rea sued orf ncfoimitaonr rtefa tpvisoie eigs.nsernc

ytiviisetSn tsste are udes ofr egeins how mnya epelpo ytrul vaeh the Sipfeyiitcc tstes ear ofr ehtso woh do ont evah teh sisa.ede

A lghiyh eisnievst ,estt ewhn tieeagv,n rleus TUO ee.dssai A ihghyl eiscpcfi tt,se nhew eopis,tvi elurs IN o,S a etts wiht twhi wlo itvniseysti tnacon eurl uot a sise.ade A stte ihwt wol psyieticcif at'nc ruel ni idseesa.

heT tcrdoo dan pttiaen awnt ot neercs rof lcoon ncerac dan lure ti .uto eTh rcdoto olduw tawn a etts itwh hgih iniiysttevs ot be blea ot do ttah. eH soknw ttha itestng reh sotlo fro odolb liwl not relu tuo eht isispoilybt fo colno CA.

sympathetikey  SeN Out (Snout) --> sensitive test; - test rules out SPec In (Specin) --> specific test; + test rules in +23  
usmlecrasher  can anyone pls explain why it is not << potential false- positive results >> ??? +  
almondbreeze  correct me if I'm wrong, but 'high FP (choice C)=low specificity (choice B)'. Whereas high specificity is required to rule in dz +2  
almondbreeze  picked positive predictive value myself. can anyone explain why not PPV? +  
williamfreakingosler  The principle @hayayah is talking about (a negative test being relied upon to reliably rule out) is negative predictive value ("NPV"). I don't see why "uncertain NPV" isn't the correct answer, particularly because NPV is predicated on the disease having the same base rate in the person(s) being tested as in the population that was characterized for the test statistic. Given that the patient has a strong family history of colon cancer, the NPV of FOBT is uncertain. Said another way, the sensitivity of a test does not change with the population, but the NPV does. The whole reason the doctor is denying FOBT is because of bayesian thinking (a priori information related to family history), and from my point of view bayesian logic is more relevant to PPV/NPV than to sensitivity, hence my confusion over why NPV isn't the right answer. +2  
ibestalkinyo  I thought negative predictive value for the same reasoning +  

submitted by hayayah(1081),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

GRHn aisogtsn lkei oirepdeuLl rea fveiecfet for anpeistt wtih barest CA eubcsae fi egivn ni a itnouonsuc in,fhsao yteh doultwaergne het nHGR cpreeort ni eth atrutpyii and eutlltymia easercde HSF dan L.H

md_caffeiner  Quick question: FA19 691 says Leuprolide ClINICAl USE is Uterine fibroids, endometriosis, precocious puberty, prostate cancer, infertility... I guess all except infetility(pulsatile?) are used as continuous? +1  
usmlecrasher  GnRH is synthesized and released in pulsatile fashion , so if you give in pulsatile way you induce GnRH effect , and if given in continuous way it will suppress synthesis, depended the desired effect you want to achieve - infertility induce GnRH with pulsatile , stop synthesis for prostate cancer , testicular cancer , hormone dependent Breast cancer give continuous +1  
djeffs1  I thought Gonadotropin was released by the Hypothalamus, not the pituitary gland. am I crazy? +  
kevintkim4  ^ Gonadotropins are referring to LH/FSH; Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GRH) is released by the hypothalamus +  
shakakaka  *GnRH +  

submitted by celeste(83),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

Wilhe eth ieftimel sirk ni teh lrgeane lapopiuton si stuj elwbo %1, ti si 5.%6 ni ifterergds-e elsetirav fo ianpstte dan it eirss to meor hnat %40 in mtooynczoig twnsi fo etffaedc pleope. gynnlizaA sliccsa isduest of hte ineegtsc of ihepaoinczrsh enod as elyar as in 3s910, iFsrceh coesnlcud ttah a eccnocrndoa tera fro ssoyihcsp fo auobt 50% in ozocgomityn wistn smese ot be a tlsrieiac smeeaitt, hcihw si lniscgfantyii rgehhi hnta htta in dgoiizcyt winst fo otabu 1–1%09 (iP/.msnhi5v6loni.3/cM62tr#p.remlb3a4cnCe/c9f/g)

imnotarobotbut  How is one supposed to know this before having read this article? +33  
imgdoc  This question falls under the either you know it or you dont category. It isnt in FA or Uworld +  
jaxx  So why would these A-holes put it on there as if prepping for this exam isn't stressful enough :-| +7  
doodimoodi  Lol just why seriously +2  
champagnesupernova3  This was mentioned in the Kaplan behavioral videos +  
usmlecrasher  and there's so much unnecessarily BS instead of real questions +1  
j44n  I'm just glad we're seeing this garbage now instead of having an aneurysm in the prometric center +3  

submitted by hayayah(1081),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

'tsI niaoatrlnsti lcle ncim,caoar hhwic gmksnoi si a mconom krsi carotf for; ti nac leivvon het enarl vce.leiyp/alscs hTe ihtso iaegm woshs eht lalpyripa neuatr of hte omtru ewvroe(h ti acn aslo eb ltaf ro lunaodr concgrdia to )othamPa.

Also nwonk sa urtholalie aciamo.nrc tosM omomcn tmuor of nryraui trcat etsysm cna( ouccr in laenr csylaec, eranl pilev,s suerrte, nda dldba.e)r anC eb gteseguds yb anslieps taruhmaie (on s.c)sat

usmlecrasher  i'm sorry guys it's bladder cancer blocking urine flow => reflux ureteral widening => reflux nephropathy. +6  
hello_planet  FA 2019 pg 588 +2  
kevin  Is the idea since that since the histology shows transitional cell cancer the most likely is smoking and that's the answer? The fact that this was unilateral really threw me off. Is it common to have unilateral carcinoma of the ureter (if that's what this case was, of the ureter) rather than bilateral? +  
lovebug  I Choose F) vinyl chloride <- only liver angiosarcoma. :( about many Carcinogen FA2019, 226pg. +