Was it just me, or did "age at onset in years" appear RIGHT above the number of patients, rather than the mean. Which confused me for a good 3 minutes.
fulminant_lifeDefinitely was the same for me. I was so confused for like 5 mins+22019-06-16T18:22:56Z
d_hollesdude i almost didn't get the question bc of this ... i thought the age of onset was the actual age of onset (36) +32019-07-04T21:55:13Z
mellowpenguinsAre you serious. NBME strikes again with shitty formatting.+2019-07-12T20:37:33Z
yexOMG!! Now I just realized that. Super confused and also thought onset of age was 36. :-/+2019-08-01T00:02:14Z
Why is it 99% and not 95%? It asked for onset of disease at less than 9 years of age. I'm clearly missing something here
cbrodo@fulminant_life because the mean age is 3.8 with a standard deviation of 1.8. An age of onset of 9 years is nearly 3 standard deviations above the mean. Therefore, since we know +/- 2 SD covers 95% of the bell curve, it must be higher than that. The only option higher than 95% is 99%. +52019-06-17T23:48:03Z
charcot_bouchardYes 9.2 was the upper limit for 99% CI. I picked 95 first because i thought 2.5% would be out of this range. But changed ans because it should be less than 2.5% because 9.2 is so close to 9. Also they are asking CLOSEST to which of the following?+2019-08-08T19:33:15Z
to snoo-finity ... and beyond!
submitted by yotsubato(217), 2019-06-16T11:56:44Z
Was it just me, or did "age at onset in years" appear RIGHT above the number of patients, rather than the mean. Which confused me for a good 3 minutes.