to snoo-finity ... and beyond!
Welcome to kai's page.
Contributor score: 15
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.
@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.
@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 :|
@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.
@zelderonmorningstar I thought the same exact thing. Had the right logic, but then just put the backwards answer.
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.
Got it wrong!messed up in understanding options,
Btw, 15/90 is somewhat 16 percent and their standerd is 50/1000 5 percent!.. this is how i knew that incidance is way up!
haloperidol induced Parkinson's... ? adding a anticholinergic can counter these adverse effects of the antipsychotic .. ?
@mousie yeah it balances the dopamine-cholinergic imbalance caused by the antipsychotics
+So antipsychotics induce Extrapyramidal side effects which is drug induced Parkinson = low Dopamine High Ach, and you would treat this with anticholinergic (Benztropine).This is neurologic.
+Antipsychotics also produce non-neurologic, systemic anti-cholinergic effects like dry mouth, sedation, hypotension etc
kick Goals (gracilis) with your feet
Cook and eat (cuneatus) with your hands
i remember gracilis is for legs by saying i have graciously long legs and they are inside while arms can spread out to remember their orientation on the spinal cord
I remember it as gracilis = grass so feet haha
Just to add found on page 492 on FA 2018.
I can't feel GRACIE's ~fine touch~ as she ~vibrates~ my balls.
Could someone please explain why you were able to eliminate the spinocerebellar tracts?
Another way to approach it is to think about MHC class I processing. Basically, if you inhibit the proteasome, peptides will not be generated and nothing is available to be loaded onto MHC I (remember MHC I has to be loaded before it's transported to the cell surface). Cells that don't express MHC I get killed by the natural killers.
"In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib down-regulates class I and enhances the sensitivity of myeloma to NK cell–mediated lysis" from the conclusion of the NIH paper
another mechanism is by blocking proteosome u even decrease degration of proapoptotic proteins...so it enchances apoptosis(from uworld)
Why others not it:
Anticipation: Trinucleotide repeats; CAG (Huntington), CTG (Myotonic dyst), GAA (ataxia telangiectasia), CGG(Fragile X)
Chromosomal rearrangement: Many but can think of Trisomy 21, BCR-Abl, etc
Imprinting: Prader willi, angelman
Loss of heterozygosity: loss of a single parent's contribution to part of its genome. A common occurrence in cancer, it often indicates the presence of tumor suppressor gene in the lost region.
trinucleotide repeats are not associated with breast cancer
Neither are chromosomal rearrangements
BRCA1,2 tumor supressor genes are associated with breast cancer, which is why I chose E, but I guess I should have bought the new First Aid..........
So is the amplification of the receptors unrelated to BRCA 1, 2? I'm still stuck on this as Sketchy states that breast cancer falls under the "two-hit" model.