welcome redditors!to snoo-finity ... and beyond!
Welcome to _yeetmasterflex's page.
Contributor score: 6
School:


Comments ...




Subcomments ...

submitted by karljeon(22),

I don't know if there is an equation for this, but I basically pumped out every division across the table to get ~5% on average.

Here they are: 400 / 6,000 = 0.067 250 / 5,600 = 0.045 300 / 5,350 = 0.056 300 / 5,050 = 0.059 250 / 4,800 = 0.052

The average of these %s for all the years = 5.58%. So that's close enough to 5%.

seagull  good work. I found this question annoying and gave up doing those considering the amount of time we are given. +3  
vshummy  Well just don’t include the intake year... because that messed me up.. +4  
_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. +1  
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 brethren_md(44),

Requires knowing how to calculate an anion gap - look it up. In this case, it is a normal anion gap metabolic acidosis. Know the mneumonics MUDPILES and HARDASS. Renal Tubular acidosis is the only answer choice that is an example of a normal anion metabolic acidosis.

mousie  Anion Gap: Na - (Cl + HCO3) = normally around 10-12 +1  
seagull  good to know. I keep looking up the urine values but all it said was "varies", then I threw my computer and yelled "does that vary Mother F****ers. I do feel better now. +14  
_yeetmasterflex  glad I wasn't the only one who got very pissed off at the urine values +1  
fulminant_life  Usually the first thing I look at is whether or not the Cl- is high. Generally if the Cl- is high its going to be a normal gap +1  
henoch schonlein  i think they gave you the urine values bc you can calculate the URINE anion gap which is (Na + K - Cl). In this case the Urine Anion Gap is positive (5). Boards and Beyond mentions that a positive UAG is due to Renal Tubular Acidosis Type 1 (inability of alpha intercalated cells to secrete hydrogen ions). just another approach to answer this q +6  
270onstep1  Actually diarrhea is the "D" in "HARDASS"(reason why I was stuck between Chron's and RTA). Ended up getting it right with RTA.. +  


submitted by keycompany(115),

This patient has a pneumothorax. Hyperventillation is not enough to compensate for the overall decrease in lung surface area.

_yeetmasterflex  Could the pneumothorax also cause less ventilation due to decreased lung surface, retaining more CO2 causing respiratory acidosis? That's how I got to the answer at least. +1  
duat98  I think pneumothorax would increase RR because you're probably hypoxic. Also I'm sure when you have a lung collapse on you you'd be scared and that would trigger your sympathetic so your RR will go up either way. +1  
kateinwonderland  Arterial blood gas studies may show respiratory alkalosis caused by a decrease in CO2 as a result of tachypnea but later hypoxemia, hypercapnia, and acidosis. The patient's SaO2 levels may decrease at first, but typically return to normal within 24 hours. (https://journals.lww.com/nursing/Fulltext/2002/11000/Understanding_pneumothorax.52.aspx) +1  
linwanrun1357  How about choice C, --ARDS? +  
bullshitusmle  there is no bilateral lung opacities as you would see in ARDS +  


submitted by gonyyong(24),

Wasn't sure about others, but mammography for general population isn't recommended until 40

_yeetmasterflex  Also wouldn't mammography be secondary prevention since you'd look for asymptomatic disease already present? +4