Scioly.org

nomynameisnotkevin wrote:oops. I really need to read the question better. That was a diff. question. It was asking what was most important for a case-control study.

Here's my new answer
[hide]Is it consistency? So you can achieve the same results with diff samples, populations, @ diff. times?[/hide]

Oh, I remember that question. I think my partner and I put down that you need to control for confounding, or some other systematic bias...and we got no credit. I wasn't sure what the answer for that was supposed to be. Did you get all the points, or just some of 'em?

Um, no, not consistency. That's probably important, but not as necessary as the answer I have in mind

Temporality? I am not sure

Ploxytomatoes2016 wrote:Temporality? I am not sure

YES.

Because if the cause comes after the effect, how can the risk factor cause the health outcome?

Your turn!

Define the term "host" and name the four classifications of hosts.

Crazy Puny Man wrote:

Ploxytomatoes2016 wrote:Temporality? I am not sure

YES.

Because if the cause comes after the effect, how can the risk factor cause the health outcome?

Your turn!

I think people had trouble with this one because of the way the question was phrased - you said "which of the criteria is the most important to confirm in order to establish a causal relationship between the risk factor under study and the effect." While the absence of temporality rules out a causal relationship as you say, confirming it actually does very little to establish one. Virtually all Huntington's patients learned to walk before they developed their disease, which does nothing to establish a causal connection between the two due to the lack of strength, specificity etc.

Flavorflav wrote:

Crazy Puny Man wrote:

Ploxytomatoes2016 wrote:Temporality? I am not sure

YES.

Because if the cause comes after the effect, how can the risk factor cause the health outcome?

Your turn!

I think people had trouble with this one because of the way the question was phrased - you said "which of the criteria is the most important to confirm in order to establish a causal relationship between the risk factor under study and the effect." While the absence of temporality rules out a causal relationship as you say, confirming it actually does very little to establish one. Virtually all Huntington's patients learned to walk before they developed their disease, which does nothing to establish a causal connection between the two due to the lack of strength, specificity etc.

Any single criterion by itself is weak, though, isn't it?

Would "necessary" be a better word?

Yes, it would. Temporality is the most necessary criterion.

Ploxytomatoes2016 wrote:Define the term "host" and name the four classifications of hosts.

Hm, so host: the organism in which an infectious disease agent/parasite lives within, under natural conditions.

I can't think of any sort of classification into exactly 4 types, but the only sort of classification that comes to mind right now is this:

-Definitive hosts: where the pathogen reaches the adult stage and reproduces in the host
-Intermediate hosts: where the immature pathogen passes through the host to complete part of its life cycle
-Reservoir hosts: carry the disease long-term, but show no effects/symptoms (so they're like carriers)

I'm not sure if this is correct at all but I thought that I'd post a reply anyways.

The definition is correct but when I said classifications I did not mean types of hosts more like what properties must a host obtain in order to harbor an infectious agent.

Hm, okay. If anyone else wants to go instead of me, feel free!