Disease Detectives B/C
- deezee
- Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: January 17th, 2011, 7:19 am
- Division: C
- State: IL
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
What are the biases and errors that we had to know?
What disease did cured ham actually have?
If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea...Does that mean the fifth one enjoys it?
I used to be healthy, until I took an arrow to the knee and got gangrene.
If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea...Does that mean the fifth one enjoys it?
I used to be healthy, until I took an arrow to the knee and got gangrene.
- butter side up
- Member
- Posts: 136
- Joined: January 6th, 2011, 9:52 am
- Division: Grad
- State: PA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Confounding error is the one that I see the most frequently. Other than that, it usually seems to be more along the lines of "identify some potential sources of bias/error in this study" or something along those lines. Even those are very rare.deezee wrote:What are the biases and errors that we had to know?
Has anyone else noticed that the "environmental" diseases include food- and water-borne diseases? It seems to be those PLUS the chemical and physical agents. It seems to be a rather broad spectrum. Do you think that those will still be heavily included, or will the focus be more on the 'purely' environmental diseases and injuries?
I am the one called "TARDIS Hat Girl," and am known as such by all.
2013: Anatomy, Experimental Design, Genetics, Forestry, Disease Detectives
2013: Anatomy, Experimental Design, Genetics, Forestry, Disease Detectives
-
- Member
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
- Division: Grad
- State: NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
That depends on the event writer. Personally, I would not use diseases that fall under the foodborne category, since that is a topic for another year. Similarly, I would not include those waterborne diseases which are heavily influenced by population density, since those fall under population growth. We had a focus on zoonoses once a while back, but since that doesn't seem to have entered the rotation I would consider those diseases fair game. This puts "natural" environmental agents such as Rickettsia, Borellia, Giardia etc. back on the table.butter side up wrote:Confounding error is the one that I see the most frequently. Other than that, it usually seems to be more along the lines of "identify some potential sources of bias/error in this study" or something along those lines. Even those are very rare.deezee wrote:What are the biases and errors that we had to know?
Has anyone else noticed that the "environmental" diseases include food- and water-borne diseases? It seems to be those PLUS the chemical and physical agents. It seems to be a rather broad spectrum. Do you think that those will still be heavily included, or will the focus be more on the 'purely' environmental diseases and injuries?
-
- Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: November 14th, 2012, 1:30 am
- Division: B
- State: KY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
nice posts..........
railroading http://www.passguide.com
Exam material CCSP http://www.passguide.com/CCSP.html
Training CCIP http://www.passguide.com/CCIP.html
Exams CCDA http://www.passguide.com/CCDA.html
Exam material CCSP http://www.passguide.com/CCSP.html
Training CCIP http://www.passguide.com/CCIP.html
Exams CCDA http://www.passguide.com/CCDA.html
- deezee
- Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: January 17th, 2011, 7:19 am
- Division: C
- State: IL
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
yeah the focus is pretty broad, but I think the majority of scenarios will involve things like carbon monoxide poisoning or sunburns and other "purely" environmental stuff, like you said.butter side up wrote:Confounding error is the one that I see the most frequently. Other than that, it usually seems to be more along the lines of "identify some potential sources of bias/error in this study" or something along those lines. Even those are very rare.deezee wrote:What are the biases and errors that we had to know?
Has anyone else noticed that the "environmental" diseases include food- and water-borne diseases? It seems to be those PLUS the chemical and physical agents. It seems to be a rather broad spectrum. Do you think that those will still be heavily included, or will the focus be more on the 'purely' environmental diseases and injuries?
What disease did cured ham actually have?
If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea...Does that mean the fifth one enjoys it?
I used to be healthy, until I took an arrow to the knee and got gangrene.
If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea...Does that mean the fifth one enjoys it?
I used to be healthy, until I took an arrow to the knee and got gangrene.
-
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: August 9th, 2012, 10:30 am
- Division: C
- State: TX
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Would a case study be similar to a case-control study? It was on our invitational test and we were kinda confused because some of the answers were clearly case-control, but it wasn't an option...
-
- Member
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
- Division: Grad
- State: NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
No. A case study is a study of a single case - i.e., one patient. They are usually only done on extremely interesting or unusual patients, and are only of use in epidemiology in the aggregate and for poorly understood conditions. What did you see on your test?
-
- Member
- Posts: 246
- Joined: March 12th, 2011, 6:54 am
- Division: Grad
- State: TX
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
That's what we told the proctor, but he told us that they'll be considered the same thing in this test. The answer choices were: Double Blind, Cohort, Case Study, and Cross Sectional. On the answer key the said odds ratio was cohort. I'm positive that the answer to that was case control and that wasn't a choice. There some other blatant mistakes as well. (I'm their partner)Flavorflav wrote:No. A case study is a study of a single case - i.e., one patient. They are usually only done on extremely interesting or unusual patients, and are only of use in epidemiology in the aggregate and for poorly understood conditions. What did you see on your test?
Seven Lakes High School '16
Previous National Champion in Green Generation and National Medalist in CJAP, Disease Detectives, Entomology, & Water Quality
Previous National Champion in Green Generation and National Medalist in CJAP, Disease Detectives, Entomology, & Water Quality
-
- Member
- Posts: 1388
- Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
- Division: Grad
- State: NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
While I am not entirely clear what the original question was from your comments, it sounds like you are right and the answer key was wrong. Cohort studies use risk ratio or rate ratio, both generally called relative risk. Odds rataio is appropriate for case-control studies and sometimes ecological analyses.
- deezee
- Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: January 17th, 2011, 7:19 am
- Division: C
- State: IL
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
I thought a case study was simply a broad term that encompasses cohort, case control, cross-sectional, etc.Flavorflav wrote:No. A case study is a study of a single case - i.e., one patient. They are usually only done on extremely interesting or unusual patients, and are only of use in epidemiology in the aggregate and for poorly understood conditions. What did you see on your test?
What disease did cured ham actually have?
If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea...Does that mean the fifth one enjoys it?
I used to be healthy, until I took an arrow to the knee and got gangrene.
If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea...Does that mean the fifth one enjoys it?
I used to be healthy, until I took an arrow to the knee and got gangrene.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest