welcome redditors!to snoo-finity ... and beyond!
Welcome to aladar50's page.
Contributor score: 17
School:


Comments ...

 +1  (nbme23#13)

The important thing for most of the ethics questions are to look for the answer where you are being the nicest/most professional while respecting the patient’s autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, etc. Most of the choices here were either accusatory or basically being mean to the patient. The correct choice is to help the patient but also motivate them to continue physical therapy and to only use the permit as little as necessary. A similar question (which I think was on NBME 23 -- they are kind of blending together) was the one where the patient had test results that indicated he had cancer but the resident said not to (voluntarily) tell him until the oncologist came in later that day, and the patient asked you about the results. You don’t want to the lie to the patient and say you don’t know or that he doesn’t have cancer, but you also don’t want to be insubordinate to the resident’s (reasonable) request.

drdoom  @aladar Your response is good but it’s actually mistaken: You *never* lie to patients. Period. In medicine, it’s our inclination not to be insubordinate to a “superior” (even if the request sounds reasonable -- “let’s not inform the patient until the oncologist comes”) but *your* relationship with *your* patient takes precedence over your relationship with a colleague or a supervisor. So, when a patient asks you a question directly, (1) you must not lie and (2) for the purposes of Step 1, you mustn’t avoid providing an answer to the question (either by deferring to someone else or by “pulling a politician” [providing a response which does not address the original question]).
drdoom  As an addendum, legally speaking, you have a contractual relationship with your patient, *not with another employee of the hospital* or even another “well-respected” colleague. This is why, from a legal as well as moral standpoint, your relationship with someone for whom you provide medical care takes precedence over “collegial relationships” (i.e., relationships with colleagues, other providers, or employers).
imnotarobotbut  @drdoom, it's not about lying to the patient but it would be wrong for an inexperienced medical student to give the patient their cancer diagnosis, or for a doctor to give a cancer diagnosis if they feel that the patient should be seen by oncology. In fact, the correct answer that the question that was referred to by aladar50 says that you do NOT give the patient their cancer diagnosis even if they asked you directly about it.
charcot_bouchard  Dont give it to him. DOnt lie to him that yyou dont know. Tell him let me get the resident rn so we can discuss together Best of both world

 +2  (nbme23#41)

For the ECG, I initially thought it was 2nd degree Type 1 because it seemed that the PR intervals were increasing until a beat was dropped, but if you look at it closely, some of the P waves were hidden in the QRS complexes. If you notice that, then you can see that there were regular P waves and regular QRS complexes, but there was a complete dissociation between them which means it was 3rd degree heart block, so the answer was ablation near the AV node.

yotsubato  answer was ablation near the AV node. No it wasnt. It was ablation OF THE AV node itself. Which faked me out.

 +3  (nbme23#13)

So there’s 100 residents, and the prevalence after 2 years is =10 at the beginning, +5 in the first year, +10 second year, and -3 that healed, for a total prevalence of 22 residents or 22/100=22 percent. Thus, prevalence = above the standard. For incidence, it’s 15 new cases out of 90 residents over the 2 years (100 total residents – 10 that already had ulcers), or 15 new ulcers per 180 patient⋅years. This would be 83.3 new ulcers per 1000 patient⋅years if you extrapolated it out -- basically (1000/180) * 15 -- thus, incidence = above the standard.

zelderonmorningstar  Okay I feel like an idiot cause I thought: Above the Standard = Doing a good job keeping old people from getting ulcers. Thumbs up. Below the Standard = I wouldn’t let my worst enemy into your ulcer ridden elder abuse shack.
aladar50  @zelderon Ohh damn. I could totally see how one could view the answer choices that way. I think it is important to read how they are phrased - they are asking if the center is above THE standard or below THE standard. The “standard” is an arbitrary set point, and the results of the study are either above or below that cut off. Maybe if it was “above/below standards” that would work. Also, being above the standard could either be a good thing or bad thing. If say you were talking about qualifying for a competition and you have to do 50 push ups in a minute, then being above=good and below=bad. In this case, having more ulcers than the standard = bad.
saynomore  @aladar Thank you!!! but how did you get the 15 new ulcers per 180 patient⋅years? I mean I understand the 15 part, but not the second part ... hence why I messed this up, lol :|
aladar50  @saysomore Because the study is looking at 100 residents over a period of 2 years. Since 10 already had the disease at the start, when looking at incidence you only include the subjects that have /the potential/ of developing the disease, so 90 patients over 2 years. This would be 90 patient⋅years per year, or a total of 180 patient⋅years over the course of the study.
sympathetikey  @zelderonmorningstar I thought the same exact thing. Had the right logic, but then just put the backwards answer.
kai  I wonder if they chose this wording on purpose just to fuck with us or if this was accidental. My guess is there's some evil doctor twirling his thumbs somewhere thinking you guys are below the standard.

 +7  (nbme23#29)

I’m not the best at the calculations of ICF/ECF, but basically you are infusing a hypertonic solution into the animal. Initially, this is all going to go into the extracellular space, as any IV infusion will do. Since it is higher than isotonic solution, water is going to go from the intracellular space to the extracellular space to try to balance it out, so the intracellular space will have decreased volume and increased osmolality (since only water is leaving, making it more concentrated).

So you know for sure ICF volume is decreased and osmolality increased, and the extracellular volume will be increased. I think the osmolality of the extracellular space is the tricky part and the part where maybe someone else can help with the calculations but basically it’s hypertonic enough that the osmolality will still be increased.

btl_nyc  Since hypertonic solution was added, osmolality has to go up. The degree of the hypertonicity doesn't really matter. The fluid flowing out of the ICF will increase ICF osmolality. Since water follows salt, the water's gonna flow only until the ECF and ICF have the same tonicity. So if the ICF osmolality went up, the ECF osmolality also had to go up, because they both need to be equal after the water is done equilibrating.
krewfoo99  ECF fluid is hypertonic because we infused an hypertonic solution. ECF volume is going to go up because A) we added more volume via injection B) Sodium attracts water, and since hypertonic solution was given water goes from ICF to ECF ICF volume decreases because the water is going to ECF. This causes an increase in Intracellular osmolarity, since you have more solutes compared to water (Less water to dilute it)




Subcomments ...

submitted by aladar50(17),

So there’s 100 residents, and the prevalence after 2 years is =10 at the beginning, +5 in the first year, +10 second year, and -3 that healed, for a total prevalence of 22 residents or 22/100=22 percent. Thus, prevalence = above the standard. For incidence, it’s 15 new cases out of 90 residents over the 2 years (100 total residents – 10 that already had ulcers), or 15 new ulcers per 180 patient⋅years. This would be 83.3 new ulcers per 1000 patient⋅years if you extrapolated it out -- basically (1000/180) * 15 -- thus, incidence = above the standard.

zelderonmorningstar  Okay I feel like an idiot cause I thought: Above the Standard = Doing a good job keeping old people from getting ulcers. Thumbs up. Below the Standard = I wouldn’t let my worst enemy into your ulcer ridden elder abuse shack. +7  
aladar50  @zelderon Ohh damn. I could totally see how one could view the answer choices that way. I think it is important to read how they are phrased - they are asking if the center is above THE standard or below THE standard. The “standard” is an arbitrary set point, and the results of the study are either above or below that cut off. Maybe if it was “above/below standards” that would work. Also, being above the standard could either be a good thing or bad thing. If say you were talking about qualifying for a competition and you have to do 50 push ups in a minute, then being above=good and below=bad. In this case, having more ulcers than the standard = bad. +1  
saynomore  @aladar Thank you!!! but how did you get the 15 new ulcers per 180 patient⋅years? I mean I understand the 15 part, but not the second part ... hence why I messed this up, lol :| +  
aladar50  @saysomore Because the study is looking at 100 residents over a period of 2 years. Since 10 already had the disease at the start, when looking at incidence you only include the subjects that have /the potential/ of developing the disease, so 90 patients over 2 years. This would be 90 patient⋅years per year, or a total of 180 patient⋅years over the course of the study. +3  
sympathetikey  @zelderonmorningstar I thought the same exact thing. Had the right logic, but then just put the backwards answer. +1  
kai  I wonder if they chose this wording on purpose just to fuck with us or if this was accidental. My guess is there's some evil doctor twirling his thumbs somewhere thinking you guys are below the standard. +5  


submitted by aladar50(17),

So there’s 100 residents, and the prevalence after 2 years is =10 at the beginning, +5 in the first year, +10 second year, and -3 that healed, for a total prevalence of 22 residents or 22/100=22 percent. Thus, prevalence = above the standard. For incidence, it’s 15 new cases out of 90 residents over the 2 years (100 total residents – 10 that already had ulcers), or 15 new ulcers per 180 patient⋅years. This would be 83.3 new ulcers per 1000 patient⋅years if you extrapolated it out -- basically (1000/180) * 15 -- thus, incidence = above the standard.

zelderonmorningstar  Okay I feel like an idiot cause I thought: Above the Standard = Doing a good job keeping old people from getting ulcers. Thumbs up. Below the Standard = I wouldn’t let my worst enemy into your ulcer ridden elder abuse shack. +7  
aladar50  @zelderon Ohh damn. I could totally see how one could view the answer choices that way. I think it is important to read how they are phrased - they are asking if the center is above THE standard or below THE standard. The “standard” is an arbitrary set point, and the results of the study are either above or below that cut off. Maybe if it was “above/below standards” that would work. Also, being above the standard could either be a good thing or bad thing. If say you were talking about qualifying for a competition and you have to do 50 push ups in a minute, then being above=good and below=bad. In this case, having more ulcers than the standard = bad. +1  
saynomore  @aladar Thank you!!! but how did you get the 15 new ulcers per 180 patient⋅years? I mean I understand the 15 part, but not the second part ... hence why I messed this up, lol :| +  
aladar50  @saysomore Because the study is looking at 100 residents over a period of 2 years. Since 10 already had the disease at the start, when looking at incidence you only include the subjects that have /the potential/ of developing the disease, so 90 patients over 2 years. This would be 90 patient⋅years per year, or a total of 180 patient⋅years over the course of the study. +3  
sympathetikey  @zelderonmorningstar I thought the same exact thing. Had the right logic, but then just put the backwards answer. +1  
kai  I wonder if they chose this wording on purpose just to fuck with us or if this was accidental. My guess is there's some evil doctor twirling his thumbs somewhere thinking you guys are below the standard. +5