Otago HSFY chat - archive

[HealthSci]

For the RER question, it said carbohydrate was the main fuel used.
The choices were like 1.1, 0.9, 0.7,0.6 i think
RER for pure carbohydrate oxidation is 1.0, for fats it is 0.7
Can't be 1.1, because the maximum is 1.0
can't be 0.7 or lower than 0.7 because it said carbohydrate is the main fuel used. So it is 0.9 as it will use some fat as well, so a bit less than 1.0.

For the initial velocity question, the absorbance went something like 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.34 0.39 (in 10sec intervals) so the gradient(velocity of reaction) was already decreasing when it reached 1min. It asked the initial velocity, so you can't use 0.39 per 1min, as the velocity was already decreasing. The more correct answer is 0.07 x 6, as it was changing by 0.07 per 10secs initially, so for 1min, it is 0.42.

 

[Public Liability]

Hey I don't remember seeing you around before HealthSci, what's up?

Yeah I screwed up that RER question, and the isozyme one too! How do you work the latter out?

And what did people put for that women NTD question??

 

[greenglacier]

Yep, I agree with everything HealthSci has said (well except for the fact that RER cannot exceed 1.0 - consider anaerobic metabolism. Pretty much irrelevant here though).

Isozyme question: 4 subunits, 2 genes, each coding for a subunit variant, hence each subunit can be one of two possible variants. Lets call the variants A and B. There are therefore the following possible isozymes:

AAAA
AAAB
AABB
ABBB
BBBB

= 5 possible isozymes.

For folic acid fortification, the only answers that were plausible were "before pregnancy" and "late pregnancy". Given that a key problem with increasing supplement use is "half of pregnancies are unplanned" (vitamins lecture, slide 35), the answer must be "before pregnancy".

 

[ChickenPie]

Hey guys, I sat umat this year (in year 13), can't wait for results and stuff. Going to Otago next year, super keen to get stuck in, applied for Carrington, and stuff.

But the reason for my post, does anyone here know what the criteria for entry under the Maori scheme into med is? other than being maori. I'm due to meet with the liason officer next week, so i'll ask them about it then, but I was just wondering if anyone here had entered under this scheme?

 

[SASOL]

Basically you just have to give evidence of your iwi etc to get entry under maori. If you get relatively high grades you could pretty much get in without getting as high grades as everyone else. I havnt seen any maori students taking health sci this year, but thats not to say there arent people with maori in them, but you probably have it alot easier than other people trying to get in. Im at Selwyn, but I've heard from people that Carrington is the best hall by far haha, don't agree myself. goodluck(y)

 

[SASOL]

How do the work out our GPAs, like the out of 9 thing?

 

[skyglow1]

A+ 9
A 8
A- 7
B+ 6
B 5

Average your grade points over your best 7 papers. Koochkooch said he asked admissions and they said they will be using actual paper marks, not GPA. It doesn't matter at this point of the course which they use though.

I heard of a guy last year or so that got a 99 average (!!!!!!!), but failed to reach the umat thresholds for each section. So not purely based on hardwork I guess..

99 average across a 3 year degree? And of course it's not all hard work. You shouldn't need rumours (which are probably highly exaggerated as usual) to tell you that :/

 

[whatisbeinghuman]

is this going to apply to 2010 hsfy students. i want in .

 

[Public Liability]

@greenglacier: Sweet thanks man, yeah that's what I put for that NTD question, it was the only one that, like, made sense?

@skyglow1: yeah perhaps you're right...I've gotta be an over-excited first year student less often, and stop believing outrageous things like that :wacko:

 

[ChickenPie]

Basically you just have to give evidence of your iwi etc to get entry under maori. If you get relatively high grades you could pretty much get in without getting as high grades as everyone else. I havnt seen any maori students taking health sci this year, but thats not to say there arent people with maori in them, but you probably have it alot easier than other people trying to get in. Carrington is the best hall by far haha, goodluck(y)

awesome, thanks a lot!

 

[SASOL]

Who was the idiot that scheduled the med info session on the same night as epi? haha, the one on Monday will be packed

 

[skyglow1]

Definitely go to that. They give you some pretty cool information like what happens after you graduate, and the different pathways and stuff. Sucks that one of the sessions is on at the same time as epi.

 

[SASOL]

How did everyone find epi?
I found it really ambiguous, have no idea whether Im right or wrong for most questions, as you could argue either way for some of them. I hate how poorly they word the questions. Can't wait till the final exam where we will be able to justify our answers, will make it so much easier. DOn't think I did too good tho, I'll be lucky to get 60% . Like for the study designs, it could have been out of 2, even tho it said the best option it was hard to choose one over the other if it wasn't obvious. I also thought the one about employment might of been cross sectional and a few others did too, as you can measure outcome and exposure at the same time and even tho it had the 10 years aspect, you could run it like a census, and it didnt specifically say they had to develop outcome as for cohort, it just said they used hospital data, which made it sound like they already had the disease, yet other people said cohort and case control......poor wording and would make it so much easier if we could justify.

 

[HealthSci]

Cohort is better suited than cross-sectional as it is the better study design for assessing association between exposure and outcome.
And from what they said, it looked more like cohort than case-control. (10 years on...etc)

Much better than last test don't you think guys?

 

[Public Liability]

Oh, thankfully I found it waaay better then the last one, as this one seemed to focus alot more on main concepts.

The highest killer in NZ was CVD, right? And what about that measles question?

And does anybody know any potential med student that actually went to that med info lecture yesterday?

See if you guys can spot me on Monday's one. I'll be the one wearing the Otago lab coat (just because I can )

 

[skyglow1]

I briefly read through the test. Seemed much easier than the first one. Measles question was due to improvement in diet/housing/hygeine...that sort of thing (rather than medicines or vaccines).

SASOL last year they permitted multiple correct answers for some of the "which study design would be the best" questions, so don't fret too much.

 

[SASOL]

Oh yay, I agree it was slightly better, but I got stuck on a few, like the measles one. What did everyone put for the true false coronary heart disease in NZ question?

 

[greenglacier]

A way better test than the last one.

Not necessarily easier as such (there have been a few contentious issues at my hall regarding some questions), but a lot fairer, focussing on concepts and actual epidemiology. Personally I think I did way better in this test than the last.

Measles was definately not the "immunization" option (so just the nutrition... one). Coronary heart disease was true - it is higher in more deprived areas (remember how she made a big deal in lectures of traditional "diseases of affluence" no longer having that position?).

What did everyone put for the exclusion criteria question? I put "women, unemployed and those not aged 45-64", but I did not put "those who had already suffered a CVD event". Only about 80% sure on this one though...

Oh, and the school decile/vegetable garden study design - not an ecological study, right? (a few people at my hall seem to think it was for some reason)

Also, who else thought they stuffed up that question about the source population for the influenza study? Given that the source population was "university teaching staff", it seems a bit off that the options were "all teachers in NZ" and "all university staff"...

 

[Deleted member 4350]

Sweet, pretty much all the same answers. This test was WAY better than the first, but certainly not easier. Regarding the question about schools, I chose ecological. How else could you compare schools? The only type of study that uses groups of individuals as a unit is ecological is it not?

Source population was all university staff in NZ.

Measure of occurrence = incidence rate
200 per 1000 in 6 months
0.67 times as likely
100 fewer people get influenza in immunised...
confounder makes vaccination seem less protective
Q about possible explainations for association - I put all of the above. A friend said it was only confounding. But I argued it could be bias as well as confounding b/c there could be error in the interview process (stigmatisation, information bias etc...). This, couple with slide 6 of lecture 19 explicitly stating "possible explanations for an observed association: confounding, bias, chance, true association" compelled me to pick "all of the above"


err can't remember much else

 

[SASOL]

Yea I thought the schools one was ecological as well. I also\ put just one option for the people you would exclude, i put women etc, but this depends on whats kind of study you thought it was, which is kinda annoying but oh well. I thought the confounder was more protective, which is probably wrong, but given other people thought it was info bias and more or less protective I really have no clue. I said source population was all NZ uni staff aswell. Screwed up a couple more, which Im annoyed about but what can ya do.