You gotta think about this one carefully!

Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)

The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.

Your test comes back positive.

Are you really sick? Explain below 👇

The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through it!

https://t.co/jGt006Vlh5
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.

👇
Here is what we know:

- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative

Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):

- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy

👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:

▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)

▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)

👇
Let's now test the group of 999,900 healthy individuals:

▫️ 989,901 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as healthy (99%)

▫️ 9,999 of them will be diagnosed (incorrectly) as sick (1%)

👇
Since your test came back positive, it means that you belong to either one of the groups that had a positive result:

1. 99 people that are truly sick, or
2. 9,999 people that are actually healthy (but were diagnosed as sick.)

👇
Basically, out of 10,098, only 99 are truly sick.

That'll give you a 0.98% chance of being sick!

So no, most likely, you are fine!

👇
Here is something important: this is true as long as our only priors are that 1 in 10,000 people have the disease.

For example, if you were showing symptoms, then your chance of being sick after receiving a positive test will be higher.

More from Santiago

More from Health

Public Health Scholarships

This may help for those considering MS/PhD in Public Health

1. The Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree in Public Health in Disasters
https://t.co/1Z5qpstsSu

2. Afya Bora Global Health

3. Carl Duisberg Scholarships

https://t.co/HnNXdbWBxy

4. Commonwealth Scholarships for Developing Countries

https://t.co/3fWGf5b2OH

5. Fellowships in Public Health & Tropical

6. Fellowships to Promote Mental Health Journalism

https://t.co/MVV9PFsBJ1

7. 2021-22 Jeroen Ensink Memorial Fund

8. Paul S. Lietman Global Travel Grant for Residents & Fellows

https://t.co/qK76R495QT

9. Global Health Internships and Funding

https://t.co/FD9Gh2wXvO

10. Kofi Annan Global Health Leadership

11. MA in European Public Health

https://t.co/5x0Vr7b1j8

12. MSc in Public Health Scholarships - Maastricht University,
1/15
Why can cefepime cause neurological toxicity?

And why is renal failure the main risk factor for this complication?

The answer requires us to learn about cefepime's structure and why it unexpectedly binds to a certain CNS receptor.

#MedTwitter #Tweetorial


2/
Let's establish a few facts about cefepime:

🔺4th generation cephalosporin antibiotic
🔺Excretion = exclusively in the urine (mostly as unchanged drug)
🔺Readily crosses the blood-brain barrier (so it easily accesses the brain)

https://t.co/rjYG1BfGPR


3/
The first report of cefepime neurotoxicity was in 1999.

A patient w/ renal failure received high doses of cefepime and then developed encephalopathy, tremors, myoclonic jerks, and tonic-clonic seizures.

✅All symptoms resolved after hemodialysis.

https://t.co/u7JLVitQpp


4/
Cefepime neurotoxicity is surprisingly common, occurring in up to 15% of treated critically ill patients (w/ symptoms varying from encephalopathy to seizures).

💡The main risk factors = renal failure and lack of dose adjustment for renal function.

https://t.co/nxbnzSq8AR


5/
What about cefepime induces neurotoxicity?

One clue is that it's not the only antibiotic that causes neurotoxicity, particularly seizures.

This actually is a class effect w/ other beta-lactam antibiotics (including penicillins and carbapenems).

https://t.co/Lf4BhON9IY

You May Also Like

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/