invite friends ⋅ share email twitter ⋅ join discord whatsapp(2ck)
support the site ⋅ become a member ⋅ unscramble the egg
free120  nbme24  nbme23  nbme22  nbme21  nbme20  nbme19  nbme18  nbme17  nbme16  nbme15  nbme13 
Welcome to sacredazn’s page.
Contributor score: 70


Comments ...

 +49  (nbme22#5)
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($35/month)

hTe econctp is a loteovundc awy of iangks if oyu wnke who VDJ amroticnboein wsk,ro whchi si ttah it si cltalyua na exlepam fo gaeirtnl the DNA fo teh T/B etm.ycohypl

truSehno tblo uitee:hcqn So nweh teyh use a erbop nastiag some eig,nor nad utuptgitno a zise of 1.5 kb ro 6 k,b hsit is nltglie oyu het eizs fo the AND meafgrnt ni hace llce d(osent’ tmeart if heyt sya J opreb or onnctsta gronie ,erpob te’ehyr sujt sgainy e’ehryt raggttein osme enetolucdi ueeqscen found in het Ig s/TluRocC bate ahcin clsuo seltpyreveic for B/T .)slecl

I ktnih het osnngfciu atrp oculd be rnoedngwi owh ouy owkn heehwrt r’oyue layprt ruhgtoh atgnrraerenme awe(srn hociesc B hrtu )D ro if it ts’anh rrdeoccu at lal ety ccetrr(o srea)w.n ree,H eth centpco is taht B slcle nodgrue JVD() argeantermenr in eth nboe orrawm, ilhwe T lcsle do ti in teh hm,tusy dna it lal anspphe ta .onec So a msplaa clle ni eht obdlo eilk ni Mlietupl amyeMol dulwo evha ullfy uerdoenng cbmtniioaen,or iwelh a T ellc in het bolod ocldu hitere eb lyluf dceedtau a(dn ahve hifeidns DVJ tooeb)namrcini or uiamemtr aht’n(s saetdtr .DV)J

niSec teh T lelc eneg aws 6 bk dna iliyftnede rggeib tahn the 15. bk neeg, eth T lcle nhsa’t ndrnueoge bemcoinatnrio .tey

trichotillomaniac  very nice explanation! +16
nwinkelmann  This was awesome! Made so much sense and hopefully I will be able to think that critically about questions in the future (because I NEVER would have come up with this on my own, hah). +4
eacv  OMG! THANK YOU. I DIDNT KNOW ANYTHING about this!! Hope this is not testesd on real examen :p +4
ajss  wow! this explanation was awesome! thanks! +
mrglass  Also the T-cell V-D-J segments are not the same as the B-cell V-D-J segments. Therefore a B-cell J segment southern blot would look for whether the B-cell site VDJ segment in a T-cell, which would always non-rearranged. +5
mynamejeff  Thank you! So is this because multiple myeloma produces excessive monoclonal light chain Ig? Is this the 1.5 kb gene? Whereas, T-cells that have not gone through differentiation yet and their J region includes everything (VDJ) vs. just VJ in the light chain? (FA 2020 pg 104) +
peridot  This explanation is amazing! However, to fully understand another step of what the question is getting at, please take a look at @highyieldboardswards's and/or @mrglass' explanation as well - a very important addition!! +




Subcomments ...

unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($35/month)

Wyh ’asntw het beatl goeunh to mdnreeeti raleepnecv in eth aeglnre aluino?topp

sacredazn  For the case control question, it’s taking that principle that you can’t use case control studies to calculate relative risk and applying it to prevalence. Basically with case control studies we start by saying okay, I’m going to find 200 people with sinusitis and 400 without. Then, you go back and look at the number exposed/unexposed and calculate the odds ratio. So you can’t use case controls to calculate prevalence because it all depends on how many cases you picked in the first place. Might make more sense to think about it with a rare cancer like craniopharyngioma or something- let’s say you chose 10 cases and 10 controls and wanted to look at how many people smoked. It wouldn’t make sense to then say the prevalance of craniopharyngioma is 10/20 = 50%. +16  
dr_trazobone69  Thank you, that makes a lot of sense! So we can use relative risk (cohort studies) to calculate prevalence? +  
sacredazn  @trazobone Hmm I think the wording would be key, you could use a prospective cohort to calculate incidence, but you wouldn’t be able to find prevalence of the gen population unless you had more info. I think the concept is that really to calculate prevalence you need a proper ecologic study looking at population-level data. The way it was worded in the question was tricky though lol since when has “cannot be determined from the info given” ever been a right answer. +5  
nwinkelmann  @sacredazn thank you! this was the best explanation to use the rare disease comparison. Made everything make so much sense and hopefully I'll actually just remember it now, instead of learning the factoid and failing to recall it all the time. +1  
hyperfukus  i guess this makes sense but i don't understand why we are asked to calculate it from tables like this then? is there more info in those? +  
hello  @hyperfukus The table was given because that a 22 table is typically what you do see regarding data for case-control studies. If the 22 table wasn't include, then literally everytone would pick Choice "E" as the correct answer b/c you can't calculate something without being provided numbers. The difference in including the data-table is that 1. again, you need to report a 22 table because that is typically what you will see regarding data for a case-control study and 2. by including the 22 table, it actually tests if the test-taker realized that the data in the 2*2 table does not help at all with calculating prevalence-- because case-control studies NEVER report on prevalence. +  


unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($35/month)

hyW na’wst eht btlae neoguh to eedetmnir ncepreveal in the rneleag ooltpn?uapi

sacredazn  For the case control question, it’s taking that principle that you can’t use case control studies to calculate relative risk and applying it to prevalence. Basically with case control studies we start by saying okay, I’m going to find 200 people with sinusitis and 400 without. Then, you go back and look at the number exposed/unexposed and calculate the odds ratio. So you can’t use case controls to calculate prevalence because it all depends on how many cases you picked in the first place. Might make more sense to think about it with a rare cancer like craniopharyngioma or something- let’s say you chose 10 cases and 10 controls and wanted to look at how many people smoked. It wouldn’t make sense to then say the prevalance of craniopharyngioma is 10/20 = 50%. +16  
dr_trazobone69  Thank you, that makes a lot of sense! So we can use relative risk (cohort studies) to calculate prevalence? +  
sacredazn  @trazobone Hmm I think the wording would be key, you could use a prospective cohort to calculate incidence, but you wouldn’t be able to find prevalence of the gen population unless you had more info. I think the concept is that really to calculate prevalence you need a proper ecologic study looking at population-level data. The way it was worded in the question was tricky though lol since when has “cannot be determined from the info given” ever been a right answer. +5  
nwinkelmann  @sacredazn thank you! this was the best explanation to use the rare disease comparison. Made everything make so much sense and hopefully I'll actually just remember it now, instead of learning the factoid and failing to recall it all the time. +1  
hyperfukus  i guess this makes sense but i don't understand why we are asked to calculate it from tables like this then? is there more info in those? +  
hello  @hyperfukus The table was given because that a 22 table is typically what you do see regarding data for case-control studies. If the 22 table wasn't include, then literally everytone would pick Choice "E" as the correct answer b/c you can't calculate something without being provided numbers. The difference in including the data-table is that 1. again, you need to report a 22 table because that is typically what you will see regarding data for a case-control study and 2. by including the 22 table, it actually tests if the test-taker realized that the data in the 2*2 table does not help at all with calculating prevalence-- because case-control studies NEVER report on prevalence. +