Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice US Medical PG questions for Ruling in vs ruling out strategies. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Question 1: A scientist in Chicago is studying a new blood test to detect Ab to EBV with increased sensitivity and specificity. So far, her best attempt at creating such an exam reached 82% sensitivity and 88% specificity. She is hoping to increase these numbers by at least 2 percent for each value. After several years of work, she believes that she has actually managed to reach a sensitivity and specificity much greater than what she had originally hoped for. She travels to China to begin testing her newest blood test. She finds 2,000 patients who are willing to participate in her study. Of the 2,000 patients, 1,200 of them are known to be infected with EBV. The scientist tests these 1,200 patients' blood and finds that only 120 of them tested negative with her new exam. Of the patients who are known to be EBV-free, only 20 of them tested positive. Given these results, which of the following correlates with the exam's specificity?
- A. 82%
- B. 90%
- C. 84%
- D. 86%
- E. 98% (Correct Answer)
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies Explanation: ***98%***
- **Specificity** measures the proportion of **true negatives** among all actual negatives.
- In this case, 800 patients are known to be EBV-free (actual negatives), and 20 of them tested positive (false positives). This means 800 - 20 = 780 tested negative (true negatives). Specificity = (780 / 800) * 100% = **98%**.
*82%*
- This value represents the *original sensitivity* before the scientist’s new attempts to improve the test.
- It does not reflect the *newly calculated specificity* based on the provided data.
*90%*
- This value represents the *newly calculated sensitivity* of the test, not the specificity.
- Out of 1200 EBV-infected patients, 120 tested negative (false negatives), meaning 1080 tested positive (true positives). Sensitivity = (1080 / 1200) * 100% = 90%.
*84%*
- This percentage is not directly derived from the information given for either sensitivity or specificity after the new test results.
- It does not correspond to any of the calculated values for the new test's performance.
*86%*
- This percentage is not directly derived from the information given for either sensitivity or specificity after the new test results.
- It does not correspond to any of the calculated values for the new test's performance.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Question 2: A group of neurologists develop a new blood test for Alzheimer's. They are optimistic about the test, as they have found that for any given patient, the test repeatedly produces very similar results. However, they find that the new test results are not necessarily consistent with the gold standard of diagnosis. How would this new test most accurately be described?
- A. Valid and reliable
- B. Reliable (Correct Answer)
- C. Valid
- D. Biased
- E. Neither valid nor reliable
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies Explanation: ***Reliable***
- The test produces **similar results repeatedly** upon repeated measures, indicating high **reliability** or **precision**.
- Reliability refers to the **consistency** of a measure, even if it is not accurate.
*Valid and reliable*
- While the test is **reliable**, it is explicitly stated that the results are **not consistent with the gold standard**, meaning it lacks **validity**.
- A test must be both **consistent** (reliable) and **accurate** (valid) to be described as valid and reliable.
*Valid*
- **Validity** refers to the **accuracy** of a test, or how well it measures what it is supposed to measure.
- The test is explicitly stated to **not be consistent with the gold standard**, indicating a lack of agreement with the true measure of Alzheimer's.
*Biased*
- **Bias** refers to a **systematic error** in measurement that can lead to consistently high or low results compared to the true value.
- While the test might be biased due to its lack of consistency with the gold standard, "biased" is not the most accurate single descriptor of its measurement properties given the information provided.
*Neither valid nor reliable*
- The test is described as producing **very similar results repeatedly**, which directly indicates it has **high reliability**.
- Therefore, stating it is neither valid nor reliable is incorrect, as it possesses reliability.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Question 3: An infectious disease investigator is evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of a new interferon-gamma-based assay for diagnosing tuberculosis in patients who have previously received a Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine. Consenting participants with a history of BCG vaccination received an interferon-gamma assay and were subsequently evaluated for tuberculosis by sputum culture. Results of the study are summarized in the table below.
Tuberculosis, confirmed by culture No tuberculosis Total
Positive interferon-gamma assay 90 6 96
Negative interferon-gamma assay 10 194 204
Total 100 200 300
Based on these results, what is the sensitivity of the interferon-gamma-based assay for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in this study?
- A. 90/96
- B. 100/300
- C. 194/200
- D. 90/100 (Correct Answer)
- E. 194/204
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies Explanation: ***90/100***
- **Sensitivity** measures the proportion of **true positive** cases that are correctly identified by the test.
- In this study, there are 90 true positive results (positive interferon-gamma assay in patients with confirmed tuberculosis) out of a total of 100 individuals with confirmed tuberculosis (90 + 10).
*90/96*
- This calculation represents the **positive predictive value** (90 true positives / 96 total positive tests).
- It answers the question: "If the test is positive, what is the likelihood that the patient actually has the disease?"
*100/300*
- This value represents the prevalence of tuberculosis in the study population (100 confirmed cases / 300 total participants).
- It does not reflect a measure of the test's diagnostic accuracy.
*194/200*
- This value represents the **specificity** of the test (194 true negatives / 200 total individuals without tuberculosis).
- Specificity measures the proportion of true negative cases that are correctly identified by the test.
*194/204*
- This calculation represents the **negative predictive value** (194 true negatives / 204 total negative tests).
- It answers the question: "If the test is negative, what is the likelihood that the patient does not have the disease?"
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Question 4: A scientist in Boston is studying a new blood test to detect Ab to the parainfluenza virus with increased sensitivity and specificity. So far, her best attempt at creating such an exam reached 82% sensitivity and 88% specificity. She is hoping to increase these numbers by at least 2 percent for each value. After several years of work, she believes that she has actually managed to reach a sensitivity and specificity even greater than what she had originally hoped for. She travels to South America to begin testing her newest blood test. She finds 2,000 patients who are willing to participate in her study. Of the 2,000 patients, 1,200 of them are known to be infected with the parainfluenza virus. The scientist tests these 1,200 patients’ blood and finds that only 120 of them tested negative with her new test. Of the following options, which describes the sensitivity of the test?
- A. 82%
- B. 86%
- C. 98%
- D. 90% (Correct Answer)
- E. 84%
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies Explanation: ***90%***
- **Sensitivity** is calculated as the number of **true positives** divided by the total number of individuals with the disease (true positives + false negatives).
- In this scenario, there were 1200 infected patients (total diseased), and 120 of them tested negative (false negatives). Therefore, 1200 - 120 = 1080 patients tested positive (true positives). The sensitivity is 1080 / 1200 = 0.90, or **90%**.
*82%*
- This value was the **original sensitivity** of the test before the scientist improved it.
- The question states that the scientist believes she has achieved a sensitivity "even greater than what she had originally hoped for."
*86%*
- This value is not directly derivable from the given data for the new test's sensitivity.
- It might represent an intermediate calculation or an incorrect interpretation of the provided numbers.
*98%*
- This would imply only 24 false negatives out of 1200 true disease cases, which is not the case (120 false negatives).
- A sensitivity of 98% would be significantly higher than the calculated 90% and the initial stated values.
*84%*
- This value is not derived from the presented data regarding the new test's performance.
- It could be mistaken for an attempt to add 2% to the original 82% sensitivity, but the actual data from the new test should be used.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Question 5: A 27-year-old man interested in pre-exposure therapy for HIV (PrEP) is being evaluated to qualify for a PrEP study. In order to qualify, patients must be HIV- and hepatitis B- and C-negative. Any other sexually transmitted infections require treatment prior to initiation of PrEP. The medical history is positive for a prior syphilis infection and bipolar affective disorder, for which he takes lithium. On his next visit, the liver and renal enzymes are within normal ranges. HIV and hepatitis B and C tests are negative. Which of the following about the HIV test is true?
- A. It is a quantitative test used for screening purposes.
- B. It is a qualitative test used for screening purposes. (Correct Answer)
- C. A secondary reagent is needed to interpret the results.
- D. A known antigen binds directly to the patient's serum.
- E. An unknown antigen binds to the known serum.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies Explanation: ***It is a qualitative test used for screening purposes.***
- **HIV screening tests** (e.g., 4th generation antibody/antigen combination assays) are typically **qualitative**, meaning they detect the presence or absence of HIV markers, not their exact amount.
- These tests are primarily used for broad **screening** of populations to identify potential cases of HIV infection.
*It is a quantitative test used for screening purposes.*
- **Quantitative tests** for HIV, such as viral load tests, measure the amount of virus in the blood and are typically used for monitoring disease progression or treatment effectiveness, not for initial screening.
- Screening tests are designed for high sensitivity to detect infection, even with low viral loads or early antibody responses, making a quantitative measurement less relevant for initial screening.
*A secondary reagent is needed to interpret the results.*
- While some complex immunoassays might involve multiple steps, modern **HIV screening tests** often use advanced technologies that directly yield results, making a separate secondary reagent for interpretation generally unnecessary.
- The results are typically indicated by a color change or a signal detected by an instrument, without requiring an additional interpretive reagent.
*A known antigen binds directly to the patient's serum.*
- **HIV antibody tests** detect **antibodies** produced by the patient's immune system in response to HIV infection.
- In such tests, **known HIV antigens** (from the test kit) bind to **HIV-specific antibodies present in the patient's serum**, not to serum components directly.
- This option is incorrect because it omits the critical role of antibodies as the target molecules being detected.
*An unknown antigen binds to the known serum.*
- This statement describes a different type of immunological assay where an unknown antigen is being identified using a known antibody, which is contrary to how **HIV screening tests** for infection are typically structured.
- **HIV screening tests** use known components (e.g., HIV antigens or antibodies) in the test kit to detect unknown components (e.g., HIV antibodies or viral antigens) in the patient's sample.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies 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)
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies 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.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Question 7: A 67-year-old man presents to the emergency department with confusion. The patient is generally healthy, but his wife noticed him becoming progressively more confused as the day went on. The patient is not currently taking any medications and has no recent falls or trauma. His temperature is 102°F (38.9°C), blood pressure is 126/64 mmHg, pulse is 120/min, respirations are 17/min, and oxygen saturation is 98% on room air. Physical exam is notable for a confused man who cannot participate in a neurological exam secondary to his confusion. No symptoms are elicited with flexion of the neck and jolt accentuation of headache is negative. Initial laboratory values are unremarkable and the patient's chest radiograph and urinalysis are within normal limits. An initial CT scan of the head is unremarkable. Which of the following is the best next step in management?
- A. CT angiogram of the head and neck
- B. Vancomycin, ceftriaxone, ampicillin, and dexamethasone
- C. Acyclovir (Correct Answer)
- D. PCR of the cerebrospinal fluid
- E. MRI of the head
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies Explanation: ***Acyclovir***
- This patient presents with **acute confusion and fever** without an obvious infectious source, negative meningeal signs, and normal initial imaging, highly suggestive of **herpes simplex encephalitis (HSE)**.
- HSE is a **medical emergency** with high mortality (70-80%) if untreated, but mortality drops to 20-30% with early acyclovir therapy.
- **Empiric acyclovir must be started immediately** upon clinical suspicion of HSE, **without waiting for diagnostic confirmation**.
- Standard management includes obtaining CSF for PCR **concurrently** with starting acyclovir, but treatment should never be delayed for diagnostic testing.
- The best next step in **management** is initiating acyclovir; CSF PCR is obtained for confirmation but does not delay treatment.
*PCR of the cerebrospinal fluid*
- **CSF PCR for HSV** is the gold standard **diagnostic test** for HSE with high sensitivity (96%) and specificity (99%).
- While lumbar puncture should be performed to obtain CSF for PCR, this is a **diagnostic step** that should be done **concurrently** with starting acyclovir, not instead of it.
- The question asks for best next step in **management**, not diagnosis—acyclovir therapy takes precedence.
- Delaying acyclovir while awaiting diagnostic confirmation significantly increases morbidity and mortality.
*Vancomycin, ceftriaxone, ampicillin, and dexamethasone*
- This broad-spectrum antibiotic regimen is empiric therapy for **bacterial meningitis** and should be considered in patients with fever and altered mental status.
- However, the **absence of meningeal signs** (negative nuchal rigidity, negative jolt accentuation) makes bacterial meningitis less likely.
- In practice, when HSE is suspected but bacterial meningitis cannot be excluded, both antimicrobial regimens may be initiated empirically, but the primary concern here is HSE given the clinical presentation.
*MRI of the head*
- **MRI with FLAIR sequences** is highly sensitive for HSE and typically shows **temporal lobe involvement** (especially medial temporal lobes).
- However, MRI findings may be **normal early in the disease course** (first 48-72 hours).
- MRI is useful for supporting the diagnosis but should **not delay empiric acyclovir therapy**.
- Obtaining MRI before treatment would be inappropriate given the time-sensitive nature of HSE.
*CT angiogram of the head and neck*
- CT angiography evaluates vascular structures and is indicated for suspected **stroke, aneurysm, or vascular dissection**.
- This patient lacks focal neurological deficits, signs of acute stroke, or vascular risk factors that would prioritize vascular imaging.
- The presentation with fever and diffuse encephalopathy points toward an infectious/inflammatory process rather than a vascular etiology.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Question 8: During an evaluation of a new diagnostic imaging modality for detecting salivary gland tumors, 90 patients tested positive out of the 100 patients who tested positive with the gold standard test. A total of 80 individuals tested negative with the new test out of the 100 individuals who tested negative with the gold standard test. What is the positive likelihood ratio for this test?
- A. 80/90
- B. 90/100
- C. 90/20 (Correct Answer)
- D. 90/110
- E. 10/80
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies Explanation: ***90/20***
- The **positive likelihood ratio (LR+)** is calculated as **sensitivity / (1 - specificity)**. To calculate this, we first need to determine the values for true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives (FN).
- Given that 90 out of 100 actual positive patients tested positive, **TP = 90** and **FN = 100 - 90 = 10**. Also, 80 out of 100 actual negative patients tested negative, so **TN = 80** and **FP = 100 - 80 = 20**.
- **Sensitivity** is the true positive rate (TP / (TP + FN)) = 90 / (90 + 10) = 90 / 100.
- **Specificity** is the true negative rate (TN / (TN + FP)) = 80 / (80 + 20) = 80 / 100.
- Therefore, LR+ = (90/100) / (1 - 80/100) = (90/100) / (20/100) = **90/20**.
*80/90*
- This option incorrectly represents the components for the likelihood ratio. It seems to misinterpret the **true negative** count and the **true positive** count.
- It does not follow the formula for LR+ which is **sensitivity / (1 - specificity)**.
*90/100*
- This value represents the **sensitivity** of the test, which is the proportion of true positives among all actual positives.
- It does not incorporate the **false positive rate** (1 - specificity) in the denominator required for the positive likelihood ratio.
*90/110*
- This option incorrectly combines different values, possibly by confusing the denominator for sensitivity or specificity calculations.
- It does not correspond to the formula for the **positive likelihood ratio**.
*10/80*
- This value seems to relate to the inverse of the **false negative rate** (10/100) or misrepresents the relationship between false negatives and true negatives.
- It is not correctly structured to represent the **positive likelihood ratio (LR+)**.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Question 9: You are reviewing raw data from a research study performed at your medical center examining the effectiveness of a novel AIDS screening examination. The study enrolled 250 patients with confirmed AIDS, and 240 of these patients demonstrated a positive screening examination. The control arm of the study enrolled 250 patients who do not have AIDS, and only 5 of these patients tested positive on the novel screening examination. What is the NPV of this novel test?
- A. 240 / (240 + 15)
- B. 240 / (240 + 5)
- C. 240 / (240 + 10)
- D. 245 / (245 + 10) (Correct Answer)
- E. 245 / (245 + 5)
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies Explanation: ***245 / (245 + 10)***
- The **negative predictive value (NPV)** is calculated as **true negatives (TN)** divided by the sum of **true negatives (TN)** and **false negatives (FN)**.
- In this study, there are 250 patients with AIDS; 240 tested positive (true positives, TP), meaning 10 tested negative (false negatives, FN = 250 - 240). There are 250 patients without AIDS; 5 tested positive (false positives, FP), meaning 245 tested negative (true negatives, TN = 250 - 5). Therefore, NPV = 245 / (245 + 10).
*240 / (240 + 15)*
- This calculation incorrectly uses the number of **true positives** (240) in the numerator and denominator, which is relevant for **positive predictive value (PPV)**, not NPV.
- The denominator `(240 + 15)` does not correspond to a valid sum for calculating NPV from the given data.
*240 / (240 + 5)*
- This calculation incorrectly uses **true positives** (240) in the numerator, which is not part of the NPV formula.
- The denominator `(240 + 5)` mixes true positives and false positives, which is incorrect for NPV.
*240 / (240 + 10)*
- This incorrectly places **true positives** (240) in the numerator instead of **true negatives**.
- The denominator `(240+10)` represents **true positives + false negatives**, which is related to sensitivity, not NPV.
*245 / (245 + 5)*
- This calculation correctly identifies **true negatives** (245) in the numerator but incorrectly uses **false positives** (5) in the denominator instead of **false negatives**.
- The denominator for NPV should be **true negatives + false negatives**, which is 245 + 10.
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG Question 10: A female presents with a 1 × 1 cm thyroid swelling. What is the next best step in management?
- A. I-131
- B. TSH (Correct Answer)
- C. TSH & T4
- D. T3 & T4
- E. FNAC
Ruling in vs ruling out strategies Explanation: ***Correct Option: TSH***
- **Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)** is the most sensitive initial test to assess thyroid function when a thyroid nodule is discovered.
- An abnormal TSH level (either high or low) can guide further investigation into whether the nodule is associated with a functional thyroid disorder.
- **TSH should be the first test** according to American Thyroid Association guidelines for thyroid nodule evaluation.
*Incorrect Option: I-131*
- **I-131 (radioactive iodine therapy)** is a treatment modality for hyperthyroidism or thyroid cancer, not a diagnostic step for initial thyroid swelling evaluation.
- Administering I-131 before assessing thyroid function would be inappropriate and could lead to unnecessary or harmful intervention.
*Incorrect Option: TSH & T4*
- While TSH is crucial, adding **T4 (thyroxine)** as an initial step is often not necessary if TSH is normal, as TSH alone effectively screens for primary thyroid dysfunction.
- Measuring both TSH and T4 is typically reserved for situations where TSH is abnormal or when central hypothyroidism is suspected.
*Incorrect Option: T3 & T4*
- Measuring **T3 (triiodothyronine)** along with T4 as an initial screening for a thyroid nodule is generally not recommended.
- T3 levels are primarily used to diagnose **hyperthyroidism** or to evaluate the severity of thyrotoxicosis after an abnormal TSH and T4 have been identified.
*Incorrect Option: FNAC*
- While **Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC)** is an essential diagnostic tool for thyroid nodules, it is typically performed after TSH assessment.
- FNAC is indicated for nodules >1 cm with suspicious ultrasound features, but **functional assessment with TSH comes first** to rule out hyperfunctioning nodules.
More Ruling in vs ruling out strategies US Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
