welcome redditors!to snoo-finity ... and beyond!

NBME 23 Answers

nbme23/Block 4/Question#12

Investigators conduct a prospective, ...

Strength of association, temporal relationship, dose-response gradient

Login to comment/vote.

 +5  upvote downvote
submitted by usmle11a(23),

guys watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnuosYuKGos

anyway (p.s i got it wrong)

A) dose-response = biological plausibility. p.s somehow equal. B) C) E) sensitivity; wrong D) my answer; consistency of other studies ( it wasnt applied to other communities)

usmle11a  guys watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnuosYuKGos anyway (p.s i got it wrong) A) dose-response = biological plausibility. p.s somehow equal. B) C) E) sensitivity; wrong D) my answer; consistency of other studies ( it wasnt applied to other communities) +1  
usmle11a  guys watch this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnuosYuKGos anyway (p.s i got it wrong) A) dose-response = biological plausibility. p.s somehow equal. B) C) E) sensitivity; wrong D) my answer; consistency of other studies ( it wasnt applied to other communities) +  




 +1  upvote downvote
submitted by rainlad(1),

my approach to this question was to eliminate all the answer choices that mentioned specificity or sensitivity, since the data here did not provide information about any sort of screening test.

that left me with two possible answer choices: I eliminated the one about consistency of other studies, since no other studies were mentioned in the question stem.

not sure if I oversimplified things, but it led me to the right answer!





Can someone please further explain this question? What biostatistical analysis should I be thinking about?

vshummy  I got this wrong but best I could come up with was this was about Bradford Hill Criteria for establishing causality. And of the 9 included, F has the most that are actually included in the information given to us. I chose D but I think since we don't know about other study results, we can't include it as directly answering the question about *this* study. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria Someone double check me here: A: biologic plausibility is a weak point in the criteria, according to the wiki. Also probably not true in regards to this study. B: Sensitivity is not part of the criteria C: " " D: We don't know about consistency E: " B " +6  
mousie  Found this ... still confused about why A and D are wrong though... https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/534/under-what-conditions-does-correlation-imply-causation +1  
2zanzibar  The three criteria for causality are: 1) empirical association (i.e. strength of association; a change in independent variable correlates or is associated with a change in dependent variable), 2) time order (i.e. temporal relationship; the independent variable must come before change in the dependent variable, or plainly stated, cause must come before effect). and 3) nonspuriousness (i.e. dose-response gradient; the relationship between 2 variables is due to a direct relationship between the two, not because of the actions of changes in a third variable... this can be evinced by a dose-dependent response). +5