Disease Detectives B/C

[Bassir]

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload ... e_para.pdf

What do you guys think of this table for the cheat sheet?

[ophiophagus]

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload ... e_para.pdf

What do you guys think of this table for the cheat sheet?

Nice find! I don't know if we would be tested so specifically on foodborne illness, but there's always a chance, so this makes a great safety. Also, for anyone else, here is a link that has similar tables for bacterial agents, viral agents and more. Plus its also got stuff on infectious diseases.

[deezee]

I would memorize as much as I could and put some key concepts on my notesheet and some things that I can't remember.

Here's how I see it: this event is not so much about memorization, but about understanding concepts of epidemiology. It means nothing to memorize a bunch of formulas when they would take up virtually no space on your note sheet, instead focus on understanding what the formula represents and when/how you would use it. Simplified Example:If you don't know how to use relative risk, instead of memorizing the formula, use up one tiny part of your sheet to write down the formula and instead understand what relative risk means(note that this example is meaningless for most people, for after you have taken so many practice tests, you will have memorized the formula anyway). Many times on a DD test, they will ask you to calculate some ratio or other, and then ask about the implications of the result, so you will need to know what your formulas mean. I appreciate the including of a note sheet in this event , even though people say there is not much you need to know for the event; if you decide to be an epidemiologist in real life, you will not need to memorize every formula by rote, but you will need to understand how to use and apply the results. [/rant]

this year's focus (for B) is food borne diseases, so I would just put some major food borne agents on the note sheet.
also theres a lot of math involved
actually odd ratio can be used with any study design, not attack rate

Also correct me if I'm wrong on this, but odds ratio is only actually useful on a case-control study. Odds ratio can be found with a cohort study, but it is meaningless, you need to use relative risk. Both odds ratio and relative risk are approximations of the risk ratio, in a case-control study, you attempt to find common exposures that may have caused the disease. You use a small sample of people with the disease and a larger sample of people without the disease and try to find differences in certain factors. Thus, if using the 2x2 table, a+b is approximated to be b and c+d is approximated as d. With a cohort study, you test people who have been exposed to a factor or unexposed, and compare the likelinesses of contracting the disease, this comparison is made using relative risk (sorry if that made no sense to you).

Thanks for telling me. I'll check it out.

[Flavorflav]

Also correct me if I'm wrong on this, but odds ratio is only actually useful on a case-control study. Odds ratio can be found with a cohort study, but it is meaningless, you need to use relative risk. Both odds ratio and relative risk are approximations of the risk ratio, in a case-control study, you attempt to find common exposures that may have caused the disease. You use a small sample of people with the disease and a larger sample of people without the disease and try to find differences in certain factors. Thus, if using the 2x2 table, a+b is approximated to be b and c+d is approximated as d. With a cohort study, you test people who have been exposed to a factor or unexposed, and compare the likelinesses of contracting the disease, this comparison is made using relative risk (sorry if that made no sense to you).

This is not quite accurate. Odds Ratio can be used in any type of study, but relative risk is preferred when it can be used because it is more intuitive, especially when the likelihood of the outcome is high. For example, if one group has a risk of 25% and another's is 75%, the RR is 3 but the OR is 9. If the likelihood is low, though, they are virtually identical. RR cannot be used in case-control studies, because you don't actually know the risk associated with your factor of interest. Also, the last part is not correct - the number of controls does not need to be higher than the number of cases, and in some instances is much lower. You are not approximating a+b with b, you are simply taking the ratio of the odds of a risk factor occurring in your cases as opposed to your controls.

[deezee]

Also, Attack rate cannot be used with case control studies because they measure the number of people sick in general and in a population. Since Case control studies are made artificially, such as one group of test subjects and one group of controls, the attack rate would not be accurate.

[quadratic]

Should I memorize different diseases or just general facts

[prelude to death]

It'd be nice if you could remember both. However, if you can't, then you can remember one (preferably the easiest one for you) and put the other on your cheat sheet.

[Starapollo1]

Should I memorize different diseases or just general facts

Most questions over specific diseases should have the answers associated with an accompanying text. Thus they should provide the symptons, etc. However it is handy to add general prevention measures to your cheat sheet. I wouldn't get hung up on randomly memorizing diseases you don't even know will be on the test. Maybe just do some research on general food borne diseases.

[deezee]

maybe go over the different study designs and their formulas, too. I'm in division b, but some things might have been crossed over but harder.

[quadratic]

Isn't disease detectives a study event. why is it in the lab forum