to snoo-finity ... and beyond!
Welcome to lfsuarez's page.
Contributor score: 63
100/120 = 83% roughly 80%
Not sure what lfsuarez and seagull above mean. Here is my explanation.
Specificity = TN/(TN+FP). This test gave 20 false positives out of 100 people, and only 15 true negatives out of 50 men.
Specificity also equals 1-FPrate, and here the FP rate seems 20% so 100%-20%=80%.
abnormal test result means pt has cancer =>
TP = 35, FN = 15 (50-35), FP=20, TN =80 (100-20) => specificity = TN/(TN+FP) = 80/100 = 0.8 (in % will be 80%)
true negatives are 80 out of 100, not 15 out of 50
If you replace the values from the question in the table of page 257 of FA 2019, yb_26 explanation is correct. Abnormal test = patient has cancer = test +
Question says 35/50 men with prostate cancer (so all 50 have cancer) only 35 have abnormal test results, meaning that TP=35 (disease + test +) and FN= 15 (disease + test - because they do have cancer but the test was not abnormal for them ).
20/100 men without prostate cancer have abnormal test results meaning all 100 DONT have cancer but 20 show that they have cancer when its not true so FP=20 (disease - test +) and TN =80 (disease - test -)
aka cavernous artery, that is what I was looking for. Did not realize it was also called the deep artery
To expand on this, the flushing/warmth/redness is due to release of PGD2 and PGE2 which is why taking an NSAID helps.
Rough endoplasmic reticulum- site of synthesis of secretory (exported) proteins.
Smooth endoplasmic reticulum- site of STEROID synthesis and detoxification of drugs and poisons.
Page 46 FA2018
Then why the fuck is it describing a mitral valve sound in the tricuspid area
it's describing a splitting S1 — consisting of mitral and tricuspid valve closure — that is best heard at the tricuspid (left lower sternal border) and mitral (cardiac apex) listening posts.
To add to ^
It is widely used (though off-label in many countries including the United States) in the treatment of hyponatremia (low blood sodium concentration) due to the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) when fluid restriction alone has been ineffective. Physiologically, this works by reducing the responsiveness of the collecting tubule cells to ADH.
The use in SIADH actually relies on a side effect; demeclocycline induces nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (dehydration due to the inability to concentrate urine).
Why would the second part of that be correct when there is not mention of a DNR?
DNI and DNR are different right? This patient had a DNI. Why would we assume it to be DNR too?
DNI and DNR are indeed different. But it is not the case here. The patient needs to be extubated means she did not sign a DNI or DNR in the first place. I assume her living will is more like terminate supporting treatment in a vegetative state. So there is no need to do resuscitation anyways. But I agree this is not a good question.
"The patient has signed the living will and is consistent with her directives" but the stem doesnt tell has what is in her living will about the extubation? we are extubating on the request of her husband? this is confusing !
I believe this question was not well constructed... it's one of those!