A researcher wants to determine whether there is an association between CRP values and the risk of MI or cancer. Four relative risk (RR) values were plotted $(0.5,1.5,1.7,1.8)$ with respect to CRP levels. What conclusion can be drawn?
Q2
A researcher wants to study the carcinogenic effects of a food additive. From the literature, he finds that 7 different types of cancers have been linked to the consumption of this food additive. He wants to study all 7 possible outcomes. He conducts interviews with people who consume food containing these additives and people who do not. He then follows both groups for several years to see if they develop any of these 7 cancers or any other health outcomes. Which of the following study models best represents this study?
Q3
A 52-year-old man comes to the physician for a follow-up examination 1 year after an uncomplicated liver transplantation. He feels well but wants to know how long he can expect his donor graft to function. The physician informs him that the odds of graft survival are 90% at 1 year, 78% at 5 years, and 64% at 10 years. At this time, given that the graft has already survived 1 year, the probability of the patient's graft surviving to 10 years after transplantation is closest to which of the following?
Q4
The study is performed to examine the association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Group of 250 subjects diagnosed with DM2 and a matched group of 250 subjects without DM2 are enrolled. Each subject is monitored regularly over their lifetime for the development of symptoms of dementia or mild cognitive impairment. If symptoms are present, an autopsy is performed after the patient's death to confirm the diagnosis of AD. Which of the following is most correct regarding this study?
Q5
A population is studied for risk factors associated with testicular cancer. Alcohol exposure, smoking, dietary factors, social support, and environmental exposure are all assessed. The researchers are interested in the incidence and prevalence of the disease in addition to other outcomes. Which pair of studies would best assess the 1. incidence and 2. prevalence?
Q6
A researcher is designing an experiment to examine the toxicity of a new chemotherapeutic agent in mice. She splits the mice into 2 groups, one of which she exposes to daily injections of the drug for 1 week. The other group is not exposed to any intervention. Both groups are otherwise raised in the same conditions with the same diet. One month later, she sacrifices the mice to check for dilated cardiomyopathy. In total, 52 mice were exposed to the drug, and 50 were not exposed. Out of the exposed group, 13 were found to have dilated cardiomyopathy on necropsy. In the unexposed group, 1 mouse was found to have dilated cardiomyopathy. Which of the following is the relative risk of developing cardiomyopathy with this drug?
Q7
A research group designs a study to investigate the epidemiology of syphilis in the United States. After a review of medical records, the investigators identify patients who are active cocaine users but did not have a history of syphilis as of one year ago. Another group of similar patients with no history of cocaine use or syphilis infection is also identified. The investigators examine the medical charts to determine whether the group of patients who are actively using cocaine was more likely to have developed syphilis over a 6-month period. The investigators ultimately found that the rate of syphilis was 30% higher in patients with active cocaine use compared to patients without cocaine use. This study is best described as which of the following?
Q8
A cohort study was conducted to investigate the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on asthma symptoms in a group of firefighters who worked at Ground Zero during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and developed asthma in the attack's aftermath. The study compared patients who had PTSD with those who did not have PTSD in order to determine if PTSD is associated with worse asthma control. During a follow-up period of 12 months, the researchers found that patients with PTSD had a greater number of hospitalizations for asthma exacerbations (RR = 2.0, 95% confidence interval = 1.4–2.5) after adjusting for medical comorbidities, psychiatric comorbidities other than PTSD, and sociodemographic variables. Results are shown:
≥ 1 asthma exacerbation No asthma exacerbations
PTSD 80 80
No PTSD 50 150
Based on these results, what proportion of asthma hospitalizations in patients with PTSD could be attributed to PTSD?
Q9
A prospective cohort study was conducted to assess the relationship between LDL and the incidence of heart disease. The patients were selected at random. Results showed a 10-year relative risk (RR) of 3.0 for people with elevated LDL levels compared to individuals with normal LDL levels. The p-value was 0.04 with a 95% confidence interval of 2.0-4.0. According to the study results, what percent of heart disease in these patients can be attributed to elevated LDL?
Q10
A recently published prospective cohort study of 1,000 men reports that smoking is significantly associated with higher rates of esophageal cancer. The next week, however, the journal publishes a letter to the editor in which a re-analysis of the study's data when accounting for the confounding effects of alcohol usage found no association between smoking and esophageal cancer. Which of the following statements is both necessary and sufficient to explain the change in result?
Cohort studies US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Question 1: A researcher wants to determine whether there is an association between CRP values and the risk of MI or cancer. Four relative risk (RR) values were plotted $(0.5,1.5,1.7,1.8)$ with respect to CRP levels. What conclusion can be drawn?
A. CRP has no relationship
B. CRP decreases & disease decreases
C. CRP increases disease/cancer risk (Correct Answer)
D. No association in first interval
E. CRP shows protective effect in first interval
Explanation: ***CRP increases disease/cancer risk***
- A **relative risk (RR)** greater than 1 indicates an increased risk of the outcome (MI or cancer) in the exposed group (higher CRP levels) compared to the unexposed group.
- The plots show RRs of 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8, all of which are greater than 1, consistently indicating that higher CRP levels are associated with an elevated risk for MI or cancer.
- The overall trend across the four intervals demonstrates a positive association between CRP and disease risk.
*CRP has no relationship*
- This conclusion is incorrect because three of the four plotted RR values (1.5, 1.7, 1.8) are above 1, indicating a positive association or increased risk.
- An RR of 1 signifies no relationship, but the majority of values clearly deviate from 1, showing a definite association.
*CRP decreases & disease decreases*
- While one RR value (0.5) suggests a decreased risk, the majority of the given RRs (1.5, 1.7, 1.8) are greater than 1, indicating an increased risk.
- This option would only be true if all or most RR values were less than 1, implying a protective effect, which is not the overall trend here.
*No association in first interval*
- The first interval shows an RR of 0.5. An RR of 1 indicates no association, while an RR of 0.5 actually indicates a **decreased risk or protective effect**, rather than no association.
- Therefore, stating "no association" for the first interval is inaccurate given the definition of relative risk.
*CRP shows protective effect in first interval*
- While the first interval RR of 0.5 does suggest a protective effect in isolation, this option fails to capture the **overall conclusion** from all four data points.
- When interpreting multiple RR values together, the predominant pattern (three values >1) indicates an overall increased risk, making this a misleading conclusion for the study as a whole.
Question 2: A researcher wants to study the carcinogenic effects of a food additive. From the literature, he finds that 7 different types of cancers have been linked to the consumption of this food additive. He wants to study all 7 possible outcomes. He conducts interviews with people who consume food containing these additives and people who do not. He then follows both groups for several years to see if they develop any of these 7 cancers or any other health outcomes. Which of the following study models best represents this study?
A. Cohort study (Correct Answer)
B. Case-control study
C. Cross-sectional study
D. Randomized clinical trial
E. Crossover study
Explanation: ***Cohort study***
- This study design involves selecting a group based on their **exposure status** (consumers vs. non-consumers of the food additive) and **following them forward in time** to observe the incidence of outcomes (cancers).
- It is ideal for studying **multiple potential outcomes** from a single exposure and for establishing the **temporal relationship** between exposure and disease.
*Case-control study*
- This design starts by identifying individuals with a particular **outcome (cases)** and comparing them to individuals without the outcome (controls) to look back for **past exposures**.
- It is efficient for studying **rare diseases** or when multiple exposures are suspected for a single outcome, which is inverse to the scenario described.
*Cross-sectional study*
- This study measures both **exposure and outcome simultaneously** at a single point in time, providing a snapshot of prevalence.
- It cannot establish a **temporal relationship** between exposure and outcome and is less suitable for studying incident diseases that develop over time.
*Randomized clinical trial*
- This design involves **randomly assigning participants** to an intervention group or a control group and following them for outcomes.
- It is primarily used to evaluate the **efficacy of interventions** or treatments, not to study the carcinogenic effects of naturally occurring exposures.
*Crossover study*
- In a crossover design, participants **receive all interventions** in a specific sequence, making each subject serve as their own control.
- This design is generally used for evaluating **short-term effects of treatments** in chronic, stable conditions and is unsuitable for observing the development of diseases like cancer over extended periods.
Question 3: A 52-year-old man comes to the physician for a follow-up examination 1 year after an uncomplicated liver transplantation. He feels well but wants to know how long he can expect his donor graft to function. The physician informs him that the odds of graft survival are 90% at 1 year, 78% at 5 years, and 64% at 10 years. At this time, given that the graft has already survived 1 year, the probability of the patient's graft surviving to 10 years after transplantation is closest to which of the following?
A. 82%
B. 58%
C. 71% (Correct Answer)
D. 64%
E. 45%
Explanation: ***71%***
- This question tests understanding of **conditional probability** in survival analysis.
- The patient is currently at 1 year post-transplant with a functioning graft. We need to calculate the probability of surviving to 10 years **given survival to 1 year**.
- Using the conditional probability formula: P(survive to 10 years | survived to 1 year) = P(S10) / P(S1) = 64% / 90% = 0.711 ≈ **71%**
- This represents the probability that a graft that has already "made it" through the first year will continue functioning until year 10.
- In **Kaplan-Meier survival analysis**, conditional probabilities are crucial for counseling patients at different timepoints post-procedure.
*64%*
- This represents the **absolute probability** of 10-year graft survival measured from the time of transplantation (time zero).
- However, the question asks "at this time" (1 year post-transplant) for the conditional probability, not the absolute probability from transplantation.
- This would be correct if asking a patient at time zero what their 10-year survival odds are.
*82%*
- This does not represent any valid calculation from the given survival data.
- It may result from incorrect manipulation of the probabilities (e.g., incorrectly adding or averaging values).
*58%*
- This is not derived from proper statistical calculation of the given survival probabilities.
- It does not represent either absolute or conditional probability for any relevant timepoint.
*45%*
- This is incorrect and does not correspond to any valid calculation.
- It might arise from incorrectly multiplying probabilities (e.g., 0.90 × 0.50) but has no basis in survival analysis.
Question 4: The study is performed to examine the association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Group of 250 subjects diagnosed with DM2 and a matched group of 250 subjects without DM2 are enrolled. Each subject is monitored regularly over their lifetime for the development of symptoms of dementia or mild cognitive impairment. If symptoms are present, an autopsy is performed after the patient's death to confirm the diagnosis of AD. Which of the following is most correct regarding this study?
A. It is a retrospective observational study.
B. Relative risk cannot be determined from this study.
C. It is a prospective observational study. (Correct Answer)
D. It can provide proof of causation between DM2 and AD.
E. It is a case-control study.
Explanation: ***It is a prospective observational study.***
- The study enrolls subjects and then follows them forward in time ("**monitored regularly over their lifetime**") to observe the development of an outcome (AD), which defines a **prospective study**.
- Since the researchers are observing and not actively intervening (e.g., administering a treatment), it is an **observational study**.
*It is a retrospective observational study.*
- A **retrospective study** looks back in time to examine outcomes that have already occurred, which is contrary to the description of following subjects over their lifetime.
- In a retrospective study, data on exposures and outcomes are collected from past records or participant recall.
*Relative risk cannot be determined from this study.*
- This study design, a **prospective cohort study**, allows for the calculation of **relative risk** because it follows groups defined by their exposure (DM2 vs. no DM2) to determine the incidence of the outcome (AD) in each group.
- Relative risk compares the incidence rate of an outcome in an exposed group to the incidence rate in an unexposed group.
*It can provide proof of causation between DM2 and AD.*
- **Observational studies** like this can identify **associations** and suggest potential causal links, but they generally cannot **prove causation** due to the possibility of confounding variables.
- While it can strengthen the hypothesis of a causal link, randomized controlled trials are often considered the gold standard for establishing causation.
*It is a case-control study.*
- A **case-control study** begins by identifying individuals with an outcome (cases, e.g., AD patients) and comparing them to individuals without the outcome (controls) to determine past exposures, which is different from following exposed and unexposed groups forward.
- This study design defines groups based on their exposure (DM2 status) at the beginning, not based on the presence or absence of the outcome.
Question 5: A population is studied for risk factors associated with testicular cancer. Alcohol exposure, smoking, dietary factors, social support, and environmental exposure are all assessed. The researchers are interested in the incidence and prevalence of the disease in addition to other outcomes. Which pair of studies would best assess the 1. incidence and 2. prevalence?
A. 1. Prospective cohort study 2. Cross sectional study (Correct Answer)
B. 1. Prospective cohort study 2. Retrospective cohort study
C. 1. Cross sectional study 2. Retrospective cohort study
D. 1. Case-control study 2. Prospective cohort study
E. 1. Clinical trial 2. Cross sectional study
Explanation: ***1. Prospective cohort study 2. Cross sectional study***
- A **prospective cohort study** is ideal for measuring **incidence** (new cases over time) because it follows a group of individuals forward in time to observe who develops the disease.
- A **cross-sectional study** is suitable for measuring **prevalence** (existing cases at a specific point in time) as it surveys a population at one moment to determine the proportion with the disease.
*1. Prospective cohort study 2. Retrospective cohort study*
- A **retrospective cohort study** assesses past exposures and outcomes and can measure incidence, but it is not the primary choice for prevalence.
- While a prospective cohort study is appropriate for incidence, a retrospective cohort study is less suited for determining current prevalence.
*1. Cross sectional study 2. Retrospective cohort study*
- A **cross-sectional study** measures prevalence, not incidence, as it captures disease status at a single point in time.
- A **retrospective cohort study** looks back in time to identify past exposures and subsequent outcomes, which is not the best method for current prevalence.
*1. Case-control study 2. Prospective cohort study*
- A **case-control study** compares exposures between individuals with a disease (cases) and those without (controls) and is best for studying rare diseases and estimating odds ratios, not incidence or prevalence directly.
- A **prospective cohort study** is suitable for incidence, but a case-control study is not for incidence or prevalence.
*1. Clinical trial 2. Cross sectional study*
- A **clinical trial** is an experimental study designed to test the efficacy of interventions and is not primarily used to measure disease incidence or prevalence in a general population.
- While a cross-sectional study is appropriate for prevalence, a clinical trial is not designed for incidence measurement.
Question 6: A researcher is designing an experiment to examine the toxicity of a new chemotherapeutic agent in mice. She splits the mice into 2 groups, one of which she exposes to daily injections of the drug for 1 week. The other group is not exposed to any intervention. Both groups are otherwise raised in the same conditions with the same diet. One month later, she sacrifices the mice to check for dilated cardiomyopathy. In total, 52 mice were exposed to the drug, and 50 were not exposed. Out of the exposed group, 13 were found to have dilated cardiomyopathy on necropsy. In the unexposed group, 1 mouse was found to have dilated cardiomyopathy. Which of the following is the relative risk of developing cardiomyopathy with this drug?
A. 12.5 (Correct Answer)
B. 25.0
C. 13.7
D. 16.3
E. 23.0
Explanation: ***Correct Option: 12.5***
- The **relative risk (RR)** is calculated as the **risk in the exposed group divided by the risk in the unexposed group**: RR = [a/(a+b)] / [c/(c+d)]
- **Risk in exposed group** = 13/52 = 0.25 (25%)
- **Risk in unexposed group** = 1/50 = 0.02 (2%)
- **RR = 0.25 / 0.02 = 12.5**
- This indicates that mice exposed to the chemotherapeutic agent are **12.5 times more likely** to develop dilated cardiomyopathy compared to unexposed mice
- An **RR > 1** indicates increased risk with exposure, supporting the drug's cardiotoxicity
*Incorrect Option: 25.0*
- This value results from **miscalculating the unexposed group risk** (e.g., using 0.01 instead of 0.02 as the denominator)
- If the unexposed risk was halved incorrectly: 0.25 / 0.01 = 25.0
- This overestimates the relative risk by a factor of 2
*Incorrect Option: 13.7*
- This value does not result from the correct **relative risk formula**
- May arise from an **arithmetic error** or confusion with other epidemiological measures
- The correct calculation of 13/52 ÷ 1/50 does not yield this result
*Incorrect Option: 16.3*
- This might result from **miscounting the number of subjects** in either group or confusing **relative risk with odds ratio**
- The **odds ratio** would be calculated as (13/39) / (1/49) = 16.3
- Remember: **Relative risk uses total exposed/unexposed as denominators**, while odds ratio uses non-diseased counts
*Incorrect Option: 23.0*
- This value suggests a **fundamental error** in applying the relative risk formula
- Could result from using incorrect numerators or denominators (e.g., 13/1 instead of proper risk calculation)
- Significantly overestimates the true relative risk of 12.5
Question 7: A research group designs a study to investigate the epidemiology of syphilis in the United States. After a review of medical records, the investigators identify patients who are active cocaine users but did not have a history of syphilis as of one year ago. Another group of similar patients with no history of cocaine use or syphilis infection is also identified. The investigators examine the medical charts to determine whether the group of patients who are actively using cocaine was more likely to have developed syphilis over a 6-month period. The investigators ultimately found that the rate of syphilis was 30% higher in patients with active cocaine use compared to patients without cocaine use. This study is best described as which of the following?
A. Prospective cohort study
B. Case-control study
C. Retrospective cohort study (Correct Answer)
D. Case series
E. Meta-analysis
Explanation: ***Retrospective cohort study***
- This study design examines **past data** (medical records) to identify groups based on exposure status (cocaine use) and then follows them forward in time from pre-existing data to determine the incidence of an outcome (syphilis).
- The investigators looked back one year to identify patients without syphilis and then observed if they developed syphilis over a subsequent 6-month period using already recorded information.
*Prospective cohort study*
- Involves identifying exposure groups (cocaine users vs. non-users) **at the present time** and then following them into the future to observe the development of an outcome.
- This study used existing medical records to define past exposure and outcomes, rather than recruiting participants and following them going forward.
*Case-control study*
- This design starts by identifying individuals with the **outcome (syphilis cases)** and a control group without the outcome, then looks **retrospectively** to determine past exposures (cocaine use) that might have contributed.
- The study described here, however, started with exposure status (cocaine use) and looked forward in time for outcomes, which is characteristic of a cohort study.
*Case series*
- A descriptive study that reports on the characteristics of a group of patients with a particular **disease or exposure**, without a comparison group.
- This study included a comparison group of patients without cocaine use, which is beyond the scope of a simple case series.
*Meta-analysis*
- A systematic review that statistically **combines the results of multiple independent studies** to provide a more precise estimate of an effect.
- This study describes a single observational study design, not a synthesis of other studies.
Question 8: A cohort study was conducted to investigate the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on asthma symptoms in a group of firefighters who worked at Ground Zero during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and developed asthma in the attack's aftermath. The study compared patients who had PTSD with those who did not have PTSD in order to determine if PTSD is associated with worse asthma control. During a follow-up period of 12 months, the researchers found that patients with PTSD had a greater number of hospitalizations for asthma exacerbations (RR = 2.0, 95% confidence interval = 1.4–2.5) after adjusting for medical comorbidities, psychiatric comorbidities other than PTSD, and sociodemographic variables. Results are shown:
≥ 1 asthma exacerbation No asthma exacerbations
PTSD 80 80
No PTSD 50 150
Based on these results, what proportion of asthma hospitalizations in patients with PTSD could be attributed to PTSD?
A. 0.25
B. 4.0
C. 0.50 (Correct Answer)
D. 2.0
E. 3.0
Explanation: ***0.50***
- The **Attributable Risk Percent (AR%)** in the exposed group is calculated as (RR - 1) / RR. Given a Relative Risk (RR) of 2.0, AR% = (2.0 - 1) / 2.0 = 1 / 2.0 = 0.50.
- This means that **50% of asthma hospitalizations** in the group with PTSD can be attributed to their PTSD status.
*0.25*
- This value is obtained by dividing 1 by 4, not relevant to the formula for **attributable risk percent** using the given relative risk.
- Incorrectly applying the formula or misinterpreting the RR would lead to this value.
*4.0*
- This value is not derived from the **attributable risk percent formula** (AR% = (RR - 1) / RR) with the given RR of 2.0.
- It might represent a misunderstanding of risk ratios or how to calculate attributable risk.
*2.0*
- This is the **Relative Risk (RR)** itself, not the proportion of asthma hospitalizations attributable to PTSD.
- The RR compares the incidence of an outcome in the exposed group to the unexposed group.
*3.0*
- This value is not obtained through any standard epidemiological calculation for **attributable risk** given the relative risk of 2.0.
- It likely results from an arbitrary calculation or an incorrect application of epidemiological formulas.
Question 9: A prospective cohort study was conducted to assess the relationship between LDL and the incidence of heart disease. The patients were selected at random. Results showed a 10-year relative risk (RR) of 3.0 for people with elevated LDL levels compared to individuals with normal LDL levels. The p-value was 0.04 with a 95% confidence interval of 2.0-4.0. According to the study results, what percent of heart disease in these patients can be attributed to elevated LDL?
A. 67% (Correct Answer)
B. 50%
C. 100%
D. 33%
E. 25%
Explanation: ***67%***
- The **attributable risk percent (AR%)** in the exposed group represents the proportion of disease in the exposed population that can be attributed to the exposure.
- It is calculated using the formula: **AR% = [(RR - 1) / RR] × 100**
- With an RR of 3.0: [(3.0 - 1) / 3.0] × 100 = (2.0 / 3.0) × 100 = 66.67%, which rounds to **67%**
- This means that 67% of heart disease cases among those with elevated LDL can be attributed to the elevated LDL levels.
*50%*
- This value would result from an RR of 2.0: [(2.0 - 1) / 2.0] × 100 = 50%
- The study reports an RR of 3.0, not 2.0, making this incorrect.
*100%*
- This would imply that all cases of heart disease in the exposed group are due solely to elevated LDL (RR approaching infinity).
- An RR of 3.0 indicates elevated LDL increases risk threefold, but does not account for all cases.
*33%*
- This might result from incorrectly calculating 1/RR = 1/3.0 = 33.3%
- The correct formula is (RR - 1)/RR, not 1/RR.
*25%*
- This would correspond to an RR of 1.33: [(1.33 - 1) / 1.33] × 100 ≈ 25%
- The given RR of 3.0 yields a much higher attributable risk percent.
Question 10: A recently published prospective cohort study of 1,000 men reports that smoking is significantly associated with higher rates of esophageal cancer. The next week, however, the journal publishes a letter to the editor in which a re-analysis of the study's data when accounting for the confounding effects of alcohol usage found no association between smoking and esophageal cancer. Which of the following statements is both necessary and sufficient to explain the change in result?
A. Men who smoke are more likely to drink
B. Men who smoke are more likely to get esophageal cancer
C. Men who drink are more likely to get esophageal cancer
D. The change in result is impossible even after adjusting for the confounding effects of alcohol intake
E. Men who drink are both more likely to smoke and more likely to develop esophageal cancer (Correct Answer)
Explanation: ***Men who drink are both more likely to smoke and more likely to develop esophageal cancer***
- This statement explains why **alcohol is a confounder**: it is associated with the exposure (**smoking**) and independently affects the outcome (**esophageal cancer**).
- When **alcohol usage** (the confounder) is accounted for in the analysis, the apparent association between smoking and esophageal cancer disappears, indicating that the initial association was misleading.
*Men who smoke are more likely to drink*
- This statement describes one necessary condition for **confounding** (association between exposure and confounder) but does not include the confounding effect of alcohol on the outcome.
- It does not explain fully why adjusting for alcohol would completely negate the association between smoking and esophageal cancer.
*Men who smoke are more likely to get esophageal cancer*
- This is the initial observation from the study before **confounding** was considered.
- It doesn't explain why the association disappears after adjusting for alcohol, as it only describes the initial raw association.
*Men who drink are more likely to get esophageal cancer*
- This statement describes another necessary condition for **confounding** (association between confounder and outcome) but does not include the association between alcohol and smoking.
- It does not fully illustrate the confounding mechanism where alcohol influences both the exposure and the disease.
*The change in result is impossible even after adjusting for the confounding effects of alcohol intake*
- This statement is incorrect because the scenario explicitly states that the re-analysis, after accounting for **confounding effects**, led to a change in the result.
- Confounding is a well-established phenomenon in epidemiology that can indeed alter study results when not properly addressed.