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 vshummy’s page.
Contributor score: 122


Comments ...

 +7  (nbme24#50)
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

So the steb i udlco fdni saw ni trsiF Aid 9102 pg 364 rnued aDeiitcb soiatdeKioc.s Teh camplgriehyey dan kiamhayelrep cuase an ostmoci diiseusr so eth enteri bydo tesg edeltdep of if.dlus eHecn yhw arpt of het raetnmtte orf DAK is IV idsul.f uYo mthig nvee lyer on htta eepic of nnirofomtia nelao ot rswena htis osetiun,q thta ADK si taedter htwi VI dlfi.su

fulminant_life  I just dont understand how that is the cause of his altered state of consciousness. Why wouldnt altered affinity of oxygen from HbA1c be correct? A1C has a higher affinity for oxygen so wouldnt that be a better reason for him being unconscious? +6
toupvote  HbA1c is more of a chronic process. It is a snapshot of three months. Also, people can have elevated A1c without much impact on their mental status. Other organs are affected sooner and to a greater degree than the brain. DKA is an acute issue. +3
snafull  Can somebody please explain why 'Inability of neurons to perform glycolysis' is wrong? +3
johnson  Probably because they're sustained on ketones. +2
doodimoodi  @snafull glucose is very high in the blood, why would neurons not be able to use it? +1
soph  @snafull maybe u are confusing bc DK tissues are unable to use the high glucose as it is unable to enter cells but I dont think thats the case in the neurons? +1
drmomo  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909073/ states its primarily due to acidosis along wth hyperosmolarity. so most relevant answer here would be dehydration +
drmohandes  I thought the high amount of glucose in the blood (osmotic pressure), sucks out the water from the cells. But you also pee out all that glucose and water goes with it. That's why you have to drink and pee a lot.. +6
titanesxvi  Neurons are not dependent on insulin, so they are not affected by utilization of glucose (only GLUT4 receptors in the muscle and adipose tissue are insulin dependent) +19
drpatinoire  @titanesxvi You really enlightened me! +

 +4  (nbme24#46)
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

I nkthi roem ryaelngel, prtieno loifgnd apspenh at eht RRE nda the esmt sysa teh enoiptr ndtse’o fldo oplyp.err a,flliSeycpci hte msot cnoomm FC noimttua is a esmdfloid eipontr dna the oitpnre si dianetre ni eht RER and not paoesrnrdtt to teh clle neamrmeb - FA 9210 pg .06

uroosisyed5  Which makes sense if we think about the pathophys of elevated Cl- and Na intracellularly. Both of these ions go up inside the cells due to the retention of the misfolded proteins in the RER. +
lilyo  I actually disagree with this reasoning. The pathophysiology in CFTR is not due to accumulation of misfolded proteins. It is due to decreased/absent ATP gated transmembrane Chloride channel. According to Uworld, the miscoded protein is detected by the Endoplasmic Reticulum. The abnormal protein is targeted for destruction by the proteasome and never reaches the cell surface. There is NO retention of misfolded protein, there is degradation of misfolded protein and therefore absence of chloride channels on the membrane. This is what leads to impaired removal of salt from the sweat as well as decreased NaCl in mucus. I dont think the answer should be ER. Can anyone tell me if I am missing something here that makes the answer ER as opposed to cytoplasm? Because the way I see if is misfolded proteins go form the ER into the cytoplasm to reach the proteasome and then be destructed. Uworld questions ID are 805, 802, 1514, and 1939. +10
drdoom  @lilyo The CFTR is a transmembrane protein. Like all proteins, its translation begins in the cytosol; that said, CFTR contains an N-terminus “signal sequence”, which means as it is being translated, it (and the ribosome making it!) will be transported to the Endoplasmic Reticulum.^footnote! As it gets translated, its hydrophobic motifs will emerge, which embeds the CFTR protein within the phospholipid bilayer of the ER itself! That means the protein will never again be found “in the cytosol” because it gets threaded through the bilayer (which is, in fact, how all transmembrane proteins become transmembrane proteins at the cell surface -- they have to be made into transmembrane proteins in the ER first!). +5
drdoom  @lilyo (continued) So, yes, ultimately, these misfolded proteins will be directed toward a proteasome for degradation/recycling, but that will happen as a little vesicle (or “liposome”); the misfolded protein, in this case, is not water-soluble (since, by definition, it has hydrophobic motifs which get “threaded through” a bilayer to create the transmembrane pattern), which means you won’t find it in the cytosol. +2
drdoom  ^footnote! : The movement of active* ribosomes from the cytosol to the Endoplasmic Reticulum is why we call that area of ER “rough Endoplasmic Reticulum (rER)”; on electron microscopy, that section was bespeckled with little dots; later, we (humans) discovered that these dots were ribosomes! +1
drdoom  * By “active ribosomes”, I just mean ribosomes in the process of converting mRNA to protein! (What we call “translation” ;) +1
wrongcareer69  How many goddamn ways are they going to test us on CF. I'm so over this! +
furqanka  also in FA, under alpha 1 antitrypsin, its says 'Misfolded gene product protein aggregates in hepatocellular ER". might be the same concept. +

 +5  (nbme23#26)
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

gaPe 529 no Frist diA 9120 uenrd lRuvaconresa s.eeaDis anMi acessu fo lnrea ayrret etss:sion rlFmuoirsubac dsaiylpas ni teh tdasli 3rd/2 fo nlare rratey or eagtneslm basc,rhen uuaysll ngoyu or egmiedald-d fsmeael.


 +6  (nbme23#24)
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

Thsi itnesoqu si rdow rof odwr ni istrF idA 9021 pgea 442 denru CL.M -- I tid'd irealez ti wsa htere ltinu I otg ti .nwrog

vshummy  "Very low leukocyte alkaline phosphatase (LAP) as a result of low activity in malignant neutrophils vs benign neutrophilia (leukemoid reaction) in which LAP is increased due to increased leukocyte count with neutrophilia in response to stressors (eg, infections, medications, severe hemorrhage)." +5




Subcomments ...

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

hTe saiodigns si rtrbsyarwe aoemihgman, onommylc spanphe in ds,ki foent ovseelrs no ist won as etyh etg l.rode

shaeking  A strawberry hemangioma is normally pink or red (which is why it is named strawberry). The description has a flat purplish lesion which makes me think of a port wine stain on the face. How do you know to think of strawberry hemangioma over port wine based on this question stem? +1  
sheesher  This sounds more like a nevus simplex, which is very similar to a port wine stain, though it regresses over time. +2  
seagull  the age is key here. Newborns have strawberry hemangiomas typically on their face. Sturge-Weber could also be the case but none of the answer choices matched to that description. +1  
vshummy  I would agree with Sturg Webber nevus flammeus but I also noticed First Aid says it's a non-neoplastic birth mark so I should have known not to pick malignant degeneration or local invasion. Also because capillary hemangiomas don't have to be flat but the nevus flammeus is consistently flat. But I'm also reading on Wiki that the nevus flammeus doesn't regress so they must be trying to describe strawberry hemangioma even though I don't agree with their color choice... +  
nala_ula  Maybe (and I can only hope I'm right and the test makers are not -that much of- sadists) they would have made sure to write "in a cranial nerve 5 (either ophthalmic or maxillary) distribution" if it were Sturge-Weber. +1  


submitted by karljeon(89),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

I odt'n wokn if ehtre is an aqonieut fro h,its btu I basicylal upepdm tuo ervye indvsioi csroas eht tlbae to etg ~%5 on gvaar.ee

eeHr ehyt e00r: a4 / 000,6 = 00.5 0276 / 6,050 = .4503000 / 3055, = 00036.50 / 50,50 = 509.0 052 / 0408, = 050.2

eTh geervaa fo hetes %s rfo lla hte yares = 5 %8o.S5. ast'ht elcso gohuen ot %.5

seagull  good work. I found this question annoying and gave up doing those considering the amount of time we are given. +4  
vshummy  Well just don’t include the intake year... because that messed me up.. +11  
_yeetmasterflex  How would we have known not to include the intake year? From average **annual** incidence? +  
lamhtu  Do not include intake year because the question stem is asking average annual incidence. The 4000 positives at intake could have acquired HIV whenever, not just in the last year. +5  
neels11  literally didn't think there was an actual way to figure this out. but my thought process was: okay incidence means NEW cases. so the annual average at the end of 5 years would be: (# of NEW people that tested positive at the end of year 5) / (# of people at that were at risk at the beginning of year 5) <--- aka at the end of year 4 250/5050 = 4.95% also if you look at year 5: you'll see that the at risk population is 4800 when 300 new cases were found the year before. 5050 at the end of year 4 MINUS the 300 new cases at the end of year 4 should give you 4750 as the new population at risk. but notice that end of year 5 we have 4800. idk if that means 50 people were false positives before or 50 people were added but in incidence births/death/etc don't matter it's kind of like UWORLD ID 1270. assuming average annual incidence is the same as cumulative incidence this was just a bunch of word vomit. sorry if it was unbearable to follow +  


submitted by lsmarshall(348),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

irtoebyannpvS is het aetrgt fo esnpoinatamst uat(ntse x)inot; mcuesl spsmsa are tasarhe.riticcc ylnO oehrt nrwsae oyu hgitm densrcio is syoctienleaceterhlAs scnie he is a aremrf nda zdowusrbz fteno rryca su to eth oseimdrp ..lad.n but tmmyspso fo a clhncigrioe rostm rae b.esant

vshummy  Synaptobrevin is a SNARE protein. Why they couldn’t just give us SNARE I’ll never know. +34  
yotsubato  Cause they're dicks, and they watched sketchy to make sure our buzzwords were removed from the exam +32  
yotsubato  Oh and they read FA and did UW to make sure its not in there either +28  
soph  This toxin binds to the presynaptic membrane of the neuromuscular junction and is internalized and transported retroaxonally to the spinal cord. Enzymatically, tetanus toxin is a zinc metalloprotease that cleaves the protein synaptobrevin, an integral neurovesicle protein involved in membrane fusion. Without membrane fusion, the release of inhibitory neurotransmitters glycine and GABA is blocked. -rx questions! +4  
qfever  So out of curiosity I checked out B) N-Acetylneuraminic acid It's sialic acid typical NBME +1  
alexxxx30  shocked they haven't started calling a "farmworker" a "drudge" <-- word I pulled from thesaurus. +  
snripper  "You shouldn't memorize buzzwords. You gotta learn how to think." Lemme pick another random ass word that doesn't have anything to do with critical thinking skills and use it instead. +2  
mw126  Just as an FYI, there are multiple "SNARE" Proteins. Syntaxin, SNAP 25, Synaptobrevin (VAMP). From google it looks like Tetanospasmin cleaves Synaptobrevin (VAMP). Botulism toxin has multiple serotypes that target any of the SNARE proteins. +  
wrongcareer69  Here's one fact I won't forget: Step 1 testwriters are incels +1  


unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

eTh siesade hree is rtefcsou paiphetshsbosa yni.eifdecc In ,it IV lgcloyer or fousetcr esdo’nt ehpl uscebea thob rtene hte gselinnueoosecg yaptahw oblwe fscoteru psaeptahsoihb. cteaalsoG on teh ohrte hdna eetnsr obaev .ti I ’dnto tihnk oyu yllera dnee to nkow htis to coesoh het ctrroec erasnw ecins eht nciclila ctiuper fo ifgtasn yipamycoghel htat si otrecercd w/ semo otrs fo asgru hatt anc ernte the uoielsnogcgnees ayhatpw hdlous elcu uyo oitn teh htgri wrnesa.

neonem  I don't think you could have *totally* ruled out the other answers - I picked glycogen breakdown because it sounded kind of like Von Gierke disease (glucose-6-phosphatase) to me: characterized by fasting hypoglycemia, lactic acidosis, and hepatomegaly since you're not able to get that final step of exporting glucose into the blood. However, I guess in this case you wouldn't see that problem of glycerol/fructose infusion not increasing blood glucose. Nice catch. +16  
vshummy  I think you were super smart to catch Von Gierke! Just to refine your answer b/c I had to look this up after reading your explanation, von gierke has a problem with gluconeogenesis as well as glycogenolysis. So they’d have a problem with glycerol and fructose but also galactose since they all feed into gluconeogenesis before glucose-6-phosphatase. Great thought process! +20  
drmomo  glycerol and fructose both enter the pathway thru DHAP and glyceraldehyde-3-ph. Galactose enters thru Gal-1-ph to glu-1-ph conversion +2  
linwanrun1357  In this cause (fructose bisphosphatase deficiency.,),fructose should help to increase serum glucose, bcz it can become into glucose-6-P by hexokinase. Therefore, this question makes me confused.... +  
krewfoo99  According to uworld, fructose infusion will not increase blood glucose levels in Von Gierkes Disease as well +  
atbangura  I believe Von Gierke is not a plausible answer choice because a galactose infusion would still not see an elevation in glucose levels. Remember, galactose could be converted to galactose 6 phosphate, but in order to complete gluconeogenesis and allow glucose to leave the Liver for an increase of its concentration in the blood, the patient would still need glucose 6 phosphatase which is eliminated in Von Gierke. +1  
lilyo  So what disease is this??? I mean couldnt we have just answered the question based on the fact that the patient responds to galactose being infused and we know that galactose feeds into gluconeogenesis?? I am so confused. +1  
djtallahassee  Its Hereditary Fructose intolerance right? gets sick after fructose and I guess glycerol can jump in via aldolase B on this pathway via page 74 of FA2019. It looked like a fructose thing to me so I just marked out the other ones and moved on. +1  
paperbackwriter  @djtallahassee I was wondering same, but hereditary fructose intolerance also results in inhibition of glycogenolysis :/ confusing question. +  
amt12d  A much simpler way to think about this, without trying to figure out a diagnosis, I looked at the time frame for when the child was presenting. He has eaten poorly for 3 days, by now, his glycogen breakdown is gone. His body would be trying to make glucose, therefore, gluconeogenesis is impaired, not glycogen breakdown. +2  
tyrionwill  if fructose kinase is not available (fructose intolerence), then some fructose may go to F-6-P by hexokinase, then goes to G6P if gluconeogenesis is needed. however this patient's fructose kinase was intact, so no fructose would have go to F6P, so there would be no blood glucose increment after injection of fructose. +  


submitted by m-ice(272),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

ictrVnsiein is a hapemieuethtcorc rugd ttha iblssiezta uclobitsumre nda nevteprs temh fomr i.dsegnlsmbsai Teh clel ni eth pecrtiu si stuck in aneashpa, twhi ebtuocimulsr eadtcaht to sti cosr,hoemosm baenul ot upll ehmt rapat bceaseu ti noctna esmsdbealis sti .umrscbiouetl

vshummy  So I get that by process of elimination cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, doxorubicin, and 5-fluorouracil are not related to microtubules but vincristine in First Aid 2019 says it prevents microtubule formation, doesn’t stabilize it because the one that stabilizes microtubules is paclitaxel. +  
vshummy  Okay, I realize now- the picture is stuck in metaphase, not anaphase. Both paclitaxel and vincristine stop the cell in metaphase but by two different mechanisms. Vincristine prevents mitotic *spindle* formation while paclitaxel prevents mitotic spindle *breakdown*. Mitotic spindle is needed to pull the chromosomes apart before anaphase begins. +12  
azibird  No, I think you were right to begin with. Without spindle formation the cell should be stuck in prophase (vincristine). Without breakdown it should be stuck in metaphase (paclitaxel). Metaphase is shown here with spindle fully formed, so it should be paclitaxel. +  
sars  I agree with the logic stated above. It could also be that the researchers added Drug X later on in M-phase, so therefore maybe the microtubules aren't even fully formed to fully reach metaphase. I think they're harping on "pick the best answer" +  
sars  I agree with the logic stated above. It could also be that the researchers added Drug X later on in M-phase, so therefore maybe the microtubules aren't even fully formed to fully reach metaphase. I think they're harping on "pick the best answer" +  


submitted by m-ice(272),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

rsnVeitcini is a tuerocteheahimcp udrg tath stebilsiaz cuulirtoemsb adn eneprsvt htem mfor sbdegin.iasslm Teh lcle in teh rpiteuc si uksct in anse,apha htiw eibmuolcsrut ceahdtta to sti scorohmeso,m nuleba ot llup mteh atpra uceabes it ncaont eelibassmsd tsi litsoemurb.uc

vshummy  So I get that by process of elimination cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, doxorubicin, and 5-fluorouracil are not related to microtubules but vincristine in First Aid 2019 says it prevents microtubule formation, doesn’t stabilize it because the one that stabilizes microtubules is paclitaxel. +  
vshummy  Okay, I realize now- the picture is stuck in metaphase, not anaphase. Both paclitaxel and vincristine stop the cell in metaphase but by two different mechanisms. Vincristine prevents mitotic *spindle* formation while paclitaxel prevents mitotic spindle *breakdown*. Mitotic spindle is needed to pull the chromosomes apart before anaphase begins. +12  
azibird  No, I think you were right to begin with. Without spindle formation the cell should be stuck in prophase (vincristine). Without breakdown it should be stuck in metaphase (paclitaxel). Metaphase is shown here with spindle fully formed, so it should be paclitaxel. +  
sars  I agree with the logic stated above. It could also be that the researchers added Drug X later on in M-phase, so therefore maybe the microtubules aren't even fully formed to fully reach metaphase. I think they're harping on "pick the best answer" +  
sars  I agree with the logic stated above. It could also be that the researchers added Drug X later on in M-phase, so therefore maybe the microtubules aren't even fully formed to fully reach metaphase. I think they're harping on "pick the best answer" +  


unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

Wyh uwdlo ti ton eb amenai fo hioncrc sdaeise tiwh rdeeesdac umesr rnarrestinf e?tornaiotnncc

lispectedwumbologist  Nevermind I'm stupid as fuck I see my mistake +  
drdoom  be kind to yourself, doc! (it's a long road we're on!) +17  
step1forthewin  Hi, can someone explain the blood smear? isn't it supposed to show hypersegmented neutrophils if it was B12 deficiency? +1  
loftybirdman  I think the blood smear is showing a lone lymphocyte, which should be the same size as a normal RBC. You can see the RBCs in this smear are bigger than that ->macrocytic ->B12 deficiency +18  
seagull  maybe i'm new to the game. but isn't the answer folate deficiency and not B12? Also, i though it was anemia of chronic disease as well. +  
vshummy  Lispectedwumbologist, please explain your mistake? Lol because that seems like a respectible answer to me... +5  
gonyyong  It's a B12 deficiency Ileum is where B12 is reabsorbed, folate is jejunum The blood smear is showing enlarged RBCs Methionine synthase does this conversion, using cofactor B12 +  
uslme123  Anemia of chronic disease is a microcytic anemia -- I believe this is why they put a lymphocyte on the side -- so we could see that it was a macrocytic anemia. +1  
yotsubato  Thanks NBME, that really helped me.... +1  
keshvi  the question was relatively easy, but the picture was so misguiding i felt! i thought it looked like microcytic RBCs. I guess the key is, that they clearly mentioned distal ileum. and that is THE site for B12 absorption. +6  
sahusema  I didn't even register that was a lymphocyte. I thought I was seeing target cells so I was confused AF +  
drschmoctor  Leave it to NBME to find the palest macrocytes on the planet. +4  


submitted by vshummy(122),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

ihsT oteisuqn is dwro for rdwo ni Frits Aid 1029 aepg 424 nrdeu LMC. -- I t'ddi azreeli it wsa rhtee nlitu I otg it orngw.

vshummy  "Very low leukocyte alkaline phosphatase (LAP) as a result of low activity in malignant neutrophils vs benign neutrophilia (leukemoid reaction) in which LAP is increased due to increased leukocyte count with neutrophilia in response to stressors (eg, infections, medications, severe hemorrhage)." +5  


submitted by docred123(4),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

naC omosnee aselpe huterrf aelnpix stih isuqeo?nt ahtW laacisititstbo saanyils uhlsdo I eb nkitnghi tauob?

vshummy  I got this wrong but best I could come up with was this was about Bradford Hill Criteria for establishing causality. And of the 9 included, F has the most that are actually included in the information given to us. I chose D but I think since we don't know about other study results, we can't include it as directly answering the question about *this* study. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria Someone double check me here: A: biologic plausibility is a weak point in the criteria, according to the wiki. Also probably not true in regards to this study. B: Sensitivity is not part of the criteria C: " " D: We don't know about consistency E: " B " +13  
mousie  Found this ... still confused about why A and D are wrong though... https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/534/under-what-conditions-does-correlation-imply-causation +1  
2zanzibar  The three criteria for causality are: 1) empirical association (i.e. strength of association; a change in independent variable correlates or is associated with a change in dependent variable), 2) time order (i.e. temporal relationship; the independent variable must come before change in the dependent variable, or plainly stated, cause must come before effect). and 3) nonspuriousness (i.e. dose-response gradient; the relationship between 2 variables is due to a direct relationship between the two, not because of the actions of changes in a third variable... this can be evinced by a dose-dependent response). +8