Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice US Medical PG questions for Interpretation and clinical application. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 1: Group of 100 medical students took an end of the year exam. The mean score on the exam was 70%, with a standard deviation of 25%. The professor states that a student's score must be within the 95% confidence interval of the mean to pass the exam. Which of the following is the minimum score a student can have to pass the exam?
- A. 45%
- B. 63.75%
- C. 67.5%
- D. 20%
- E. 65% (Correct Answer)
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***65%***
- To find the **95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean**, we use the formula: Mean ± (Z-score × Standard Error). For a 95% CI, the Z-score is approximately **1.96**.
- The **Standard Error (SE)** is calculated as SD/√n, where n is the sample size (100 students). So, SE = 25%/√100 = 25%/10 = **2.5%**.
- The 95% CI is 70% ± (1.96 × 2.5%) = 70% ± 4.9%. The lower bound is 70% - 4.9% = **65.1%**, which rounds to **65%** as the minimum passing score.
*45%*
- This value is significantly lower than the calculated lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (approximately 65.1%).
- It would represent a score far outside the defined passing range.
*63.75%*
- This value falls below the calculated lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (approximately 65.1%).
- While close, this score would not meet the professor's criterion for passing.
*67.5%*
- This value is within the 95% confidence interval (65.1% to 74.9%) but is **not the minimum score**.
- Lower scores within the interval would still qualify as passing.
*20%*
- This score is extremely low and falls significantly outside the 95% confidence interval for a mean of 70%.
- It would indicate performance far below the defined passing threshold.
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 2: A 25-year-old man with a genetic disorder presents for genetic counseling because he is concerned about the risk that any children he has will have the same disease as himself. Specifically, since childhood he has had difficulty breathing requiring bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids, and chest physiotherapy. He has also had diarrhea and malabsorption requiring enzyme replacement therapy. If his wife comes from a population where 1 in 10,000 people are affected by this same disorder, which of the following best represents the likelihood a child would be affected as well?
- A. 0.01%
- B. 2%
- C. 0.5%
- D. 1% (Correct Answer)
- E. 50%
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***Correct Option: 1%***
- The patient's symptoms (difficulty breathing requiring bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids, and chest physiotherapy; diarrhea and malabsorption requiring enzyme replacement therapy) are classic for **cystic fibrosis (CF)**, an **autosomal recessive disorder**.
- For an autosomal recessive disorder with a prevalence of 1 in 10,000 in the general population, **q² = 1/10,000**, so **q = 1/100 = 0.01**. The carrier frequency **(2pq)** is approximately **2q = 2 × (1/100) = 1/50 = 0.02**.
- The affected man is **homozygous recessive (aa)** and will always pass on the recessive allele. His wife has a **1/50 chance of being a carrier (Aa)**. If she is a carrier, she has a **1/2 chance of passing on the recessive allele**.
- Therefore, the probability of an affected child = **(Probability wife is a carrier) × (Probability wife passes recessive allele) = 1/50 × 1/2 = 1/100 = 1%**.
*Incorrect Option: 0.01%*
- This percentage is too low and does not correctly account for the carrier frequency in the population and the probability of transmission from a carrier mother.
*Incorrect Option: 2%*
- This represents approximately the carrier frequency (1/50 ≈ 2%), but does not account for the additional 1/2 probability that a carrier mother would pass on the recessive allele.
*Incorrect Option: 0.5%*
- This value would be correct if the carrier frequency were 1/100 instead of 1/50, which does not match the given population prevalence.
*Incorrect Option: 50%*
- **50%** would be the risk if both parents were carriers of an autosomal recessive disorder (1/4 chance = 25% for affected, but if we know one parent passes the allele, conditional probability changes). More accurately, 50% would apply if the disorder were **autosomal dominant** with one affected parent, which is not the case here.
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 3: A randomized control double-blind study is conducted on the efficacy of 2 sulfonylureas. The study concluded that medication 1 was more efficacious in lowering fasting blood glucose than medication 2 (p ≤ 0.05; 95% CI: 14 [10-21]). Which of the following is true regarding a 95% confidence interval (CI)?
- A. If the same study were repeated multiple times, approximately 95% of the calculated confidence intervals would contain the true population parameter. (Correct Answer)
- B. The 95% confidence interval is the probability chosen by the researcher to be the threshold of statistical significance.
- C. When a 95% CI for the estimated difference between groups contains the value ‘0’, the results are significant.
- D. It represents the probability that chance would not produce the difference shown, 95% of the time.
- E. The study is adequately powered at the 95% confidence interval.
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***If the same study were repeated multiple times, approximately 95% of the calculated confidence intervals would contain the true population parameter.***
- This statement accurately defines the **frequentist interpretation** of a confidence interval (CI). It reflects the long-run behavior of the CI over hypothetical repetitions of the study.
- A 95% CI means that if you were to repeat the experiment many times, 95% of the CIs calculated from those experiments would capture the **true underlying population parameter**.
*The 95% confidence interval is the probability chosen by the researcher to be the threshold of statistical significance.*
- The **alpha level (α)**, typically set at 0.05 (or 5%), is the threshold for statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05), representing the probability of a Type I error.
- The 95% confidence level (1-α) is related to statistical significance, but it is not the *threshold* itself; rather, it indicates the **reliability** of the interval estimate.
*When a 95% CI for the estimated difference between groups contains the value ‘0’, the results are significant.*
- If a 95% CI for the difference between groups **contains 0**, it implies that there is **no statistically significant difference** between the groups at the 0.05 alpha level.
- A statistically significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) would be indicated if the 95% CI **does NOT contain 0**, suggesting that the intervention had a real effect.
*It represents the probability that chance would not produce the difference shown, 95% of the time.*
- This statement misinterprets the meaning of a CI and probability. The chance of not producing the observed difference is typically addressed by the **p-value**, not directly by the CI in this manner.
- A CI provides a **range of plausible values** for the population parameter, not a probability about the role of chance in producing the observed difference.
*The study is adequately powered at the 95% confidence interval.*
- **Statistical power** is the probability of correctly rejecting a false null hypothesis, typically set at 80% or 90%. It is primarily determined by sample size, effect size, and alpha level.
- A 95% CI is a measure of the **precision** of an estimate, while power refers to the **ability of a study to detect an effect** if one exists. They are related but distinct concepts.
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 4: A researcher is trying to determine whether a newly discovered substance X can be useful in promoting wound healing after surgery. She conducts this study by enrolling the next 100 patients that will be undergoing this surgery and separating them into 2 groups. She decides which patient will be in which group by using a random number generator. Subsequently, she prepares 1 set of syringes with the novel substance X and 1 set of syringes with a saline control. Both of these sets of syringes are unlabeled and the substances inside cannot be distinguished. She gives the surgeon performing the surgery 1 of the syringes and does not inform him nor the patient which syringe was used. After the study is complete, she analyzes all the data that was collected and performs statistical analysis. This study most likely provides which level of evidence for use of substance X?
- A. Level 3
- B. Level 1 (Correct Answer)
- C. Level 4
- D. Level 5
- E. Level 2
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***Level 1***
- The study design described is a **randomized controlled trial (RCT)**, which is considered the **highest level of evidence (Level 1)** in the hierarchy of medical evidence.
- Key features like **randomization**, **control group**, and **blinding (double-blind)** help minimize bias and strengthen the validity of the findings.
*Level 2*
- Level 2 evidence typically comprises **well-designed controlled trials without randomization** (non-randomized controlled trials) or **high-quality cohort studies**.
- While strong, they do not possess the same level of internal validity as randomized controlled trials.
*Level 3*
- Level 3 evidence typically includes **case-control studies** or **cohort studies**, which are observational designs and carry a higher risk of bias compared to RCTs.
- These studies generally do not involve randomization or intervention assignment by the researchers.
*Level 4*
- Level 4 evidence is usually derived from **case series** or **poor quality cohort and case-control studies**.
- These studies provide descriptive information or investigate associations without strong control for confounding factors.
*Level 5*
- Level 5 evidence is the **lowest level of evidence**, consisting of **expert opinion** or **animal research/bench research**.
- This level lacks human clinical data or systematic investigative rigor needed for higher evidence levels.
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 5: You conduct a medical research study to determine the screening efficacy of a novel serum marker for colon cancer. The study is divided into 2 subsets. In the first, there are 500 patients with colon cancer, of which 450 are found positive for the novel serum marker. In the second arm, there are 500 patients who do not have colon cancer, and only 10 are found positive for the novel serum marker. What is the overall sensitivity of this novel test?
- A. 450 / (450 + 10)
- B. 490 / (10 + 490)
- C. 490 / (50 + 490)
- D. 450 / (450 + 50) (Correct Answer)
- E. 490 / (450 + 490)
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***450 / (450 + 50)***
- **Sensitivity** is defined as the proportion of actual positive cases that are correctly identified by the test.
- In this study, there are **500 patients with colon cancer** (actual positives), and **450 of them tested positive** for the marker, while **50 tested negative** (500 - 450 = 50). Therefore, sensitivity = 450 / (450 + 50) = 450/500 = 0.9 or 90%.
*450 / (450 + 10)*
- This formula represents **Positive Predictive Value (PPV)**, which is the probability that a person with a positive test result actually has the disease.
- It incorrectly uses the total number of **test positives** in the denominator (450 true positives + 10 false positives) instead of the total number of diseased individuals, which is needed for sensitivity.
*490 / (10 + 490)*
- This is actually the correct formula for **specificity**, not sensitivity.
- Specificity = TN / (FP + TN) = 490 / (10 + 490) = 490/500 = 0.98 or 98%, which measures the proportion of actual negative cases correctly identified.
- The question asks for sensitivity, not specificity.
*490 / (50 + 490)*
- This formula incorrectly mixes **true negatives (490)** with **false negatives (50)** in an attempt to calculate specificity.
- The correct specificity formula should use false positives (10), not false negatives (50), in the denominator: 490 / (10 + 490).
*490 / (450 + 490)*
- This calculation incorrectly combines **true negatives (490)** and **true positives (450)** in the denominator, which does not correspond to any standard epidemiological measure.
- Neither sensitivity nor specificity uses both true positives and true negatives in the denominator.
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 6: You are reading through a recent article that reports significant decreases in all-cause mortality for patients with malignant melanoma following treatment with a novel biological infusion. Which of the following choices refers to the probability that a study will find a statistically significant difference when one truly does exist?
- A. Type II error
- B. Type I error
- C. Confidence interval
- D. p-value
- E. Power (Correct Answer)
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***Power***
- **Power** is the probability that a study will correctly reject the null hypothesis when it is, in fact, false (i.e., will find a statistically significant difference when one truly exists).
- A study with high power minimizes the risk of a **Type II error** (failing to detect a real effect).
*Type II error*
- A **Type II error** (or **beta error**) occurs when a study fails to reject a false null hypothesis, meaning it concludes there is no significant difference when one actually exists.
- This is the **opposite** of what the question describes, which asks for the probability of *finding* a difference.
*Type I error*
- A **Type I error** (or **alpha error**) occurs when a study incorrectly rejects a true null hypothesis, concluding there is a significant difference when one does not actually exist.
- This relates to the **p-value** and the level of statistical significance (e.g., p < 0.05).
*Confidence interval*
- A **confidence interval** provides a range of values within which the true population parameter is likely to lie with a certain degree of confidence (e.g., 95%).
- It does not directly represent the probability of finding a statistically significant difference when one truly exists.
*p-value*
- The **p-value** is the probability of observing data as extreme as, or more extreme than, that obtained in the study, assuming the null hypothesis is true.
- It is used to determine statistical significance, but it is not the probability of detecting a true effect.
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 7: You are currently employed as a clinical researcher working on clinical trials of a new drug to be used for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Currently, you have already determined the safe clinical dose of the drug in a healthy patient. You are in the phase of drug development where the drug is studied in patients with the target disease to determine its efficacy. Which of the following phases is this new drug currently in?
- A. Phase 4
- B. Phase 1
- C. Phase 2 (Correct Answer)
- D. Phase 0
- E. Phase 3
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***Phase 2***
- **Phase 2 trials** involve studying the drug in patients with the target disease to assess its **efficacy** and further evaluate safety, typically involving a few hundred patients.
- The question describes a stage after safe dosing in healthy patients (Phase 1) and before large-scale efficacy confirmation (Phase 3), focusing on efficacy in the target population.
*Phase 4*
- **Phase 4 trials** occur **after a drug has been approved** and marketed, monitoring long-term effects, optimal use, and rare side effects in a diverse patient population.
- This phase is conducted post-market approval, whereas the question describes a drug still in development prior to approval.
*Phase 1*
- **Phase 1 trials** primarily focus on determining the **safety and dosage** of a new drug in a **small group of healthy volunteers** (or sometimes patients with advanced disease if the drug is highly toxic).
- The question states that the safe clinical dose in a healthy patient has already been determined, indicating that Phase 1 has been completed.
*Phase 0*
- **Phase 0 trials** are exploratory, very early-stage studies designed to confirm that the drug reaches the target and acts as intended, typically involving a very small number of doses and participants.
- These trials are conducted much earlier in the development process, preceding the determination of safe clinical doses and large-scale efficacy studies.
*Phase 3*
- **Phase 3 trials** are large-scale studies involving hundreds to thousands of patients to confirm **efficacy**, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug to be used safely.
- While Phase 3 does assess efficacy, it follows Phase 2 and is typically conducted on a much larger scale before submitting for regulatory approval.
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 8: A research team is working on a new assay meant to increase the sensitivity of testing in cervical cancer. Current sensitivity is listed at 77%. If this research team's latest work culminates in the following results (listed in the table), has the sensitivity improved, and, if so, then by what percentage?
Research team's latest results:
| | Patients with cervical cancer | Patients without cervical cancer |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Test is Positive (+) | 47 | 4 |
| Test is Negative (-) | 9 | 44 |
- A. No, the research team has seen a decrease in sensitivity according to the new results listed.
- B. No, the research team has not seen any improvement in sensitivity according to the new results listed.
- C. Yes, the research team has seen an improvement in sensitivity of almost 7% according to the new results listed. (Correct Answer)
- D. Yes, the research team has seen an improvement in sensitivity of more than 10% according to the new results listed.
- E. Yes, the research team has seen an improvement in sensitivity of less than 2% according to new results listed; this improvement is negligible and should be improved upon for significant contribution to the field.
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***Yes, the research team has seen an improvement in sensitivity of almost 7% according to the new results listed.***
- **Sensitivity** is calculated as **True Positives / (True Positives + False Negatives)**. From the table: True Positives = 47, False Negatives = 9.
- New sensitivity = 47 / (47 + 9) = 47 / 56 $\approx$ **83.9%**. Compared to the current sensitivity of 77%, this is an improvement of 83.9% - 77% = **6.9%**, which is almost 7%.
*No, the research team has not seen any improvement in sensitivity according to the new results listed.*
- The new sensitivity calculated is **83.9%**, which is indeed higher than the current sensitivity of **77%**.
- This option incorrectly states there is no improvement, as a clear increase of nearly 7% is observed.
*No, the research team has seen a decrease in sensitivity according to the new results listed.*
- The calculated new sensitivity of **83.9%** is higher than the original 77%, indicating an **increase**, not a decrease.
- This statement is factually incorrect based on the provided data.
*Yes, the research team has seen an improvement in sensitivity of more than 10% according to the new results listed.*
- The improvement is approximately **6.9%** (83.9% - 77%), which is less than 10%.
- This option overstates the degree of improvement observed.
*Yes, the research team has seen an improvement in sensitivity of less than 2% according to new results listed; this improvement is negligible and should be improved upon for significant contribution to the field.*
- The calculated improvement is approximately **6.9%**, not less than 2%.
- While clinical significance can be debated, the mathematical calculation of improvement is not accurately reflected by "less than 2%".
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 9: A pharmaceutical company reports a new antihypertensive drug reduces cardiovascular events with an NNT of 50 over 5 years based on a trial of 10,000 patients. An independent analysis reveals the benefit was driven entirely by a subgroup with resistant hypertension (20% of participants, NNT=15), while the remaining 80% showed no benefit over standard therapy (NNT approaching infinity). Evaluate the ethical and regulatory implications of reporting the overall NNT.
- A. Conduct a new trial in the general hypertensive population to validate efficacy before broader approval
- B. The subgroup analysis represents data dredging; only the overall NNT should be used for clinical decisions
- C. The overall NNT of 50 is statistically valid and appropriate for regulatory approval and marketing
- D. Report both overall and subgroup NNTs; allow clinicians to determine appropriate use based on patient characteristics
- E. The overall NNT is misleading; approval should be restricted to resistant hypertension population where benefit is demonstrated (Correct Answer)
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***The overall NNT is misleading; approval should be restricted to resistant hypertension population where benefit is demonstrated***
- Reporting an **aggregate NNT** when the clinical benefit is confined to a specific **subgroup** obscures the fact that the drug is ineffective for 80% of the study population.
- Regulatory and ethical standards dictate that **indication for use** must be limited to populations where a **favorable benefit-risk ratio** has been proven, preventing unnecessary exposure to side effects in non-responders.
*The overall NNT of 50 is statistically valid and appropriate for regulatory approval and marketing*
- While the math is accurate for the trial population as a whole, it ignores **heterogeneity of treatment effect**, which is critical for making safe **clinical recommendations**.
- Marketing a drug based on an **averaged NNT** when the majority of patients derive zero benefit is considered **clinically misleading** and ethically questionable.
*Report both overall and subgroup NNTs; allow clinicians to determine appropriate use based on patient characteristics*
- This approach puts the burden of identifying the correct population on the clinician rather than setting **clear regulatory boundaries** through specific labelling.
- Merely reporting the **overall NNT** may lead to **off-label use** in populations where the NNT is effectively **infinity**, representing a failure in evidence-based guidance.
*Conduct a new trial in the general hypertensive population to validate efficacy before broader approval*
- The existing data already demonstrates that the **general population** (the 80% non-resistant group) showed no benefit over standard therapy.
- Conducting a new trial for the general population would be **unethical and redundant**, as the lack of efficacy in that specific group has already been established by the **independent analysis**.
*The subgroup analysis represents data dredging; only the overall NNT should be used for clinical decisions*
- **Data dredging** refers to finding random patterns; however, identifying a lack of benefit in 80% of a population is a critical **safety and efficacy finding** that cannot be ignored.
- Dismissing the **subgroup effect** would result in potentially treating millions of patients with an **ineffective medication**, violating the principle of **non-maleficence**.
Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG Question 10: A public health agency must allocate a fixed budget between two interventions for diabetes prevention. Program A (intensive lifestyle modification): NNT=7, cost $3,500/person. Program B (metformin): NNT=14, cost $1,000/person. Both prevent one case of diabetes over 3 years. The budget allows treating 1,000 people with Program A or 3,500 people with Program B. Evaluate the optimal allocation strategy to maximize population health impact.
- A. Choose based on cost per case prevented: Program A ($24,500) vs Program B ($14,000), favoring Program B (Correct Answer)
- B. Choose Program B exclusively: higher population reach (3,500 vs 1,000) and lower cost per person treated maximizes prevention (250 cases) despite higher NNT
- C. Allocate budget equally between programs: provides both high-efficacy and broad-reach approaches
- D. Choose Program A for high-risk individuals and Program B for moderate-risk: risk-stratified approach optimizes NNT
- E. Choose Program A exclusively: lower NNT means superior efficacy, preventing 143 cases versus 250 with Program B
Interpretation and clinical application Explanation: ***Choose based on cost per case prevented: Program A ($24,500) vs Program B ($14,000), favoring Program B***
- To maximize **population health impact** under a fixed budget, one must calculate the **cost per case prevented**, which is found by multiplying the **NNT** by the **cost per person** ($1,000 x 14 = $14,000 for Program B).
- Program B allows for a much higher total number of cases prevented (**250 cases**) compared to Program A (**142 cases**) because the **lower unit cost** outweighs the higher NNT.
*Choose Program A exclusively: lower NNT means superior efficacy, preventing 143 cases versus 250 with Program B*
- While Program A has a **lower NNT**, indicating it is more effective for an individual, it is significantly less **cost-effective** for a population due to its high cost.
- Exclusive use of Program A would result in fewer total cases prevented (142) compared to the 250 cases prevented by Program B, wasting **allocated resources**.
*Choose Program B exclusively: higher population reach (3,500 vs 1,000) and lower cost per person treated maximizes prevention (250 cases) despite higher NNT*
- This option correctly identifies the outcome but lacks the precise **economic justification** (cost per outcome) required for optimal health allocation decisions.
- Public health decisions are fundamentally based on **incremental cost-effectiveness ratios** or cost per case prevented rather than reach alone.
*Allocate budget equally between programs: provides both high-efficacy and broad-reach approaches*
- Managing a fixed budget by splitting it equally results in **196 total cases prevented**, which is mathematically inferior to the 250 cases prevented by prioritizing the more cost-efficient program.
- This approach fails to address the **opportunity cost** of not spending the entire budget on the more efficient intervention.
*Choose Program A for high-risk individuals and Program B for moderate-risk: risk-stratified approach optimizes NNT*
- While **risk stratification** is clinically sound, the prompt asks to maximize impact based on the provided fixed costs and NNTs for the general intervention group.
- Adding complexity to the delivery model can further increase **administrative costs**, which are not accounted for in this basic **cost-effectiveness analysis**.
More Interpretation and clinical application US Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
