Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Test your knowledge of various Science Olympiad events
Crazy Puny Man
Member
Member
Posts: 265
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 6:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: IN

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby Crazy Puny Man » December 1st, 2013, 5:30 pm

Hey, would it be strength? Because the association between the probable cause and effect should be strong to continue one's investigation.
Um...not quite what I'm looking for, no...

Ploxytomatoes2016
Member
Member
Posts: 0
Joined: December 25th, 2013, 8:03 am
Division: B
State: NJ

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby Ploxytomatoes2016 » December 25th, 2013, 8:08 am

Specificity

nomynameisnotkevin
Member
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: January 21st, 2012, 11:11 am
Division: C
State: IL

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby nomynameisnotkevin » December 25th, 2013, 8:24 am

Hey, would it be strength? Because the association between the probable cause and effect should be strong to continue one's investigation.
Um...not quite what I'm looking for, no...
I got points for this one @ Palatine, so I'll say what I put down. Definition - if the definition of what you're looking for (disease, infection, illness, impairment whatever) is not consistent throughout or is too broad/specific, all of your data is useless.

Crazy Puny Man
Member
Member
Posts: 265
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 6:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: IN

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby Crazy Puny Man » December 25th, 2013, 10:56 am

No, and no. nomynameisnotkevin, I'm pretty sure that how you define a case is not one of Hill's criteria for causation...

Can you tell me what this question was?

As for specificity: not quite...I'm pretty sure there are certain risk factors that can produce multiple effects; for example, smoking leads to a variety of health problems (a weak example, but I think you know what I'm trying to say). Establishing a relationship like that would certainly help, but it's not the most important criterion

And to whoever suggested strength: a stronger association is indeed more likely to be causal than a weak association; however, strength is only a measure of how strong the correlation is; it doesn't necessarily indicate a causal relationship, and the criterion I have in mind is more important to establish than strength

Brain snack: a weak association does not mean that the relationship is not causal; for example, weak associations have been observed between a person's diet and the risk of coronary heart disease, but diet is still thought to be a major causative factor

nomynameisnotkevin
Member
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: January 21st, 2012, 11:11 am
Division: C
State: IL

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby nomynameisnotkevin » December 25th, 2013, 3:58 pm

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]

Crazy Puny Man
Member
Member
Posts: 265
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 6:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: IN

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby Crazy Puny Man » December 25th, 2013, 4:01 pm

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

Ploxytomatoes2016
Member
Member
Posts: 0
Joined: December 25th, 2013, 8:03 am
Division: B
State: NJ

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby Ploxytomatoes2016 » December 26th, 2013, 10:09 am

Temporality? I am not sure

Crazy Puny Man
Member
Member
Posts: 265
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 6:25 pm
Division: Grad
State: IN

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby Crazy Puny Man » December 26th, 2013, 10:32 am

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!

Ploxytomatoes2016
Member
Member
Posts: 0
Joined: December 25th, 2013, 8:03 am
Division: B
State: NJ

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby Ploxytomatoes2016 » December 27th, 2013, 11:16 am

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

Flavorflav
Member
Member
Posts: 1358
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 7:06 am
Division: Grad
State: NY

Re: Disease Detectives B/C Question Marathon

Postby Flavorflav » January 2nd, 2014, 6:18 am

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.


Return to “2014 Question Marathons”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest