2005 Edition of First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 - Official Errata Thread

[Pox in a box]

---

Members don't see this ad.

List the errors you find. Include the page number(s), section, and the correction that needs to be made. Also list the source if you know one to validate your correction.

 

[Pox in a box]

Copy the post previous to yours and add. List the errors you find. Include the page number(s), section, and the correction that needs to be made. Also list the source if you know one to validate your correction.

1. Page 226 - Pathology (Neoplastic) - Tumor Suppressor genes; DCC (Gene) - 18q (Chromosome) - Colon cancer (Associated tumor); DCC should also be associated with gastric carcinoma.

2.

 

[Yogi Bear]

Copy the post previous to yours and add. List the errors you find. Include the page number(s), section, and the correction that needs to be made. Also list the source if you know one to validate your correction.

1. Page 226 - Pathology (Neoplastic) - Tumor Suppressor genes; DCC (Gene) - 18q (Chromosome) - Colon cancer (Associated tumor); DCC should also be associated with gastric carcinoma.

2.[/QUOTE

a little thread hijack/repost? 😛 check out this thread that came first: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=172710

anyways, where did u get ur the gastric carcinoma? pg 293 of robbins: "Deleted in Colon Carcinoma (DCC)" has no mention of gastric carcinoma.

 

[Pox in a box]

Copy the post previous to yours and add. List the errors you find. Include the page number(s), section, and the correction that needs to be made. Also list the source if you know one to validate your correction.

1. Page 226 - Pathology (Neoplastic) - Tumor Suppressor genes; DCC (Gene) - 18q (Chromosome) - Colon cancer (Associated tumor); DCC should also be associated with gastric carcinoma.

2.[/QUOTE

a little thread hijack/repost? 😛 check out this thread that came first: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=172710

anyways, where did u get ur the gastric carcinoma? pg 293 of robbins: "Deleted in Colon Carcinoma (DCC)" has no mention of gastric carcinoma.

No harm intended. I didn't see a thread on the subject in a quick search. The subject in the other post does not specifically mention 2005 (in the title) and the thread does not have errors listed in a good format to add other findings, therefore, this is neither a hijack nor a repost. Sorry.

By the way, you can find that DCC is associated with gastric carcinoma in many sources. Here are a few:

Kataoka M, et al. Aberration of p53 and DCC in gastric and colorectal cancer. Oncol Rep 2000 Jan-Feb;7(1):99-103 (PubMed)


Fang DC, et al. Loss of heterozygosity and loss of expression of the DCC gene in gastric cancer. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51(8):593-6 (PubMed)


Medline Search: DCC AND gastric cancer (PubMed) Limit search to: [Last Year] Limit search to: [Last 2 Years] Limit search to: [Reviews]

 

[Pox in a box]

Copy the post previous to yours and add. List the errors you find. Include the page number(s), section, and the correction that needs to be made. Also list the source if you know one to validate your correction.

1. Page 226 - Pathology (Neoplastic) - Tumor Suppressor genes; DCC (Gene) - 18q (Chromosome) - Colon cancer (Associated tumor); DCC should also be associated with gastric carcinoma.

2.

 

[mpp]

I wouldn't use PUBMED and data from obscure journals to study for Step 1. Stick with what's in First Aid and a few other good review books or QBank. Try not to add too much extra...

 

[mpp]

Correcting errors is fine...just don't try to add too much.

 

[Pox in a box]

I wouldn't use PUBMED and data from obscure journals to study for Step 1. Stick with what's in First Aid and a few other good review books or QBank. Try not to add too much extra...

To tell you the truth, the original addition was made after reading it on QBank. I was only trying to help. If you don't want to remember it, that's your loss. There are many other articles on it and if you think it's not boardworthy, that's your choice. Since when did the Journal of Clinical Pathology become "obscure"?

 

[p53]

Copy the post previous to yours and add. List the errors you find. Include the page number(s), section, and the correction that needs to be made. Also list the source if you know one to validate your correction.

1. Page 226 - Pathology (Neoplastic) - Tumor Suppressor genes; DCC (Gene) - 18q (Chromosome) - Colon cancer (Associated tumor); DCC should also be associated with gastric carcinoma.

2.[/QUOTE

a little thread hijack/repost? 😛 check out this thread that came first: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=172710

anyways, where did u get ur the gastric carcinoma? pg 293 of robbins: "Deleted in Colon Carcinoma (DCC)" has no mention of gastric carcinoma.

I wholeheartedly agree. This is a hijack with lies to boot. The word official in the title gives away his intention.

 

[Pox in a box]

I wholeheartedly agree. This is a hijack with lies to boot. The word official in the title gives away his intention.

I tell you what...I'll change the title. I do not care. I just want to help each other out so we can do the best we can on the Step 1. I only started this thread as a help to others. I don't want any credit for it. Let's make it the "unofficial" errors thread. Are you happy?

 

[samyjay]

OK guys, i was the one who started the first thread, and seriously I DO NOT CARE what is hijacked, or not, as Pox said, this is meant to help everyone, so we can just scratch out the errors, and replace them. So here is mine again. Image 104 says Sarcoidosis is a Caseating granuloma (we have all learned that sarcoidosis is NON caseating

 

[docmemi]

i was told to stick with what is found in text books, e.g., robbins path. new information that still has to be tested further cannot be asked on usmle. also remember that its multiple choice and you can eliminate obvious wrong choices.

 

[p53]

OK guys, i was the one who started the first thread, and seriously I DO NOT CARE what is hijacked, or not, as Pox said, this is meant to help everyone, so we can just scratch out the errors, and replace them. So here is mine again. Image 104 says Sarcoidosis is a Caseating granuloma (we have all learned that sarcoidosis is NON caseating

Samyjay we will drop it, but the other guy/gal owes you a public apology. The reason he put 2005 and OFFICIAL on his title is because he saw your post first, and wanted to distinguish his thread.

 

[Pox in a box]

Samyjay we will drop it, but the other guy/gal owes you a public apology. The reason he put 2005 and OFFICIAL on his title is because he saw your post first, and wanted to distinguish his thread.

No apology. That post was only in reference to First Aid errors and didn't clearly distinguish the 2005 edition. p53, quit being an instigator. It's over. Go guard your basement membrane.

 

[JMD]

How did a thread that is supposed to be helpful become so aggressive?

p53, if you look around this site, there are many "Official" threads. For example, in pre allo when there are 10 different threads asking about acceptance to a particular school, someone will start an "OFFICIAL so-and so university acceptance" thread. The point is to put all the info in one place and make it convenient for people interested in the topic, not to give a F*&# you to the other threads.

As for Pox's sources, she was simply stating where she got the info. She never told anyone they had to study the most recent journals, nor did she say that you had to change the info in YOUR First Aid.

If everyone posts what they believe are errors and a source, then it is up to each of us whether we utilize the info or not. This is an internet forum, and as with anything on the internet it may not necessarily be factual. Look it up for yourself if you don't trust it.

Anyways, I just don't understand why threads that are trying to be helpful always turn into some sort of accusational clutter.

 

[p53]

JMD, why are you defending her? She purposely stole samyjay's idea. Private message Yogi Bear or Samyjay and ask them. When she apologizes, we can move on. She was in the wrong and will have no credibility for future posts if she doesn't aplogize.

 

[Pox in a box]

JMD, why are you defending her? She purposely stole samyjay's idea. Private message Yogi Bear or Samyjay and ask them. When she apologizes, we can move on. She was in the wrong and will have no credibility for future posts if she doesn't aplogize.

I wish there was an "ignore" feature on SDN because I'd rather not read p53's posts ever again. If there is a moderator watching this thread, I believe that we have a troll.

 

[Pox in a box]

In polyarteritis nodosa, is there an association with P-ANCA? 2nd Edition BRS Pathology (p. 140) says there is but the 2005 First Aid says there is NOT an association with ANCA (p. 269).

From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease, 7th Edition:

"Either ANCA specificity may occur in a patient with ANCA-associated small-vessel vasculitis but c-ANCA is typically found in Wegener granulomatosis and p-ANCA is found in most cases of microscopic polyangiitis and Churg-Strauss syndrome."​

So, is BRS confusing polyarteritis nodosa with microscopic polyangiitis (microscopic polyarteritis, hypersensitivity, or leuckocystoclastic vasculitis)?

 

[omarsaleh66]

In polyarteritis nodosa, is there an association with P-ANCA? 2nd Edition BRS Pathology (p. 140) says there is but the 2005 First Aid says there is NOT an association with ANCA (p. 269).

From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease, 7th Edition:

"Either ANCA specificity may occur in a patient with ANCA-associated small-vessel vasculitis but c-ANCA is typically found in Wegener granulomatosis and p-ANCA is found in most cases of microscopic polyangiitis and Churg-Strauss syndrome."​

So, is BRS confusing polyarteritis nodosa with microscopic polyangiitis (microscopic polyarteritis, hypersensitivity, or leuckocystoclastic vasculitis)?

Poly arterius nodosa is just associated with Hep B. No markers here.

Microscopic polyangiitis is a subgroup or variant of poly arterius nodosa. This one tests postive for myeloperoxidase (P-ANCA) and proteinasse 3 (C-anca).

BRS 2nd ed is outdated bro. haha (there are some mistakes in BRS involving immunopath as well, but i dont ahve time to look for it now). something about the MHC complexes.

holla at yo boy

 

[Pox in a box]

Copy the post previous to yours and add. List the errors and omissions you find. Include the page number(s), section, and the correction that needs to be made. Also list the source if you know one to validate your correction.

1. Page 226 - Pathology (Neoplastic) - Tumor Suppressor genes; DCC (Gene) - 18q (Chromosome) - Colon cancer (Associated tumor); DCC should also be associated with gastric carcinoma.

2. Color Image 104 - Pathology - Sarcoidosis. Necrotizing sarcoid granuloma with macrophage infiltrates and caseation. Change to "Non-caseating sarcoid granuloma with macrophage infiltrates."

3. Page 242 - Pathology - Crohn's disease and cystic fibrosis should be listed as risk factors for pigment stones, not cholesterol stones. Refer to Robbins (7th ed.).

4. Page 136 - Biochemistry - "Eukaryotes have separate polymerases for synthesizing RNA primers..." Change to "...DNA primers..."

 

[bigfrank]

Copy the post previous to yours and add. List the errors and omissions you find. Include the page number(s), section, and the correction that needs to be made. Also list the source if you know one to validate your correction.

2. Color Image 104 - Pathology - Sarcoidosis. Necrotizing sarcoid granuloma with macrophage infiltrates and caseation. Change to "Non-caseating necrotizing sarcoid granuloma with macrophage infiltrates."

I'm a little rusty re: pathology, but I believe that "Non-caseating necrotizing" is a contradictory phrase. I'd just stick with non-caseating.

 

[Pox in a box]

I'm a little rusty re: pathology, but I believe that "Non-caseating necrotizing" is a contradictory phrase. I'd just stick with non-caseating.

You're right. I just copied and pasted real quick and didn't notice it was there. It has been edited.

 

[bigfrank]

Cool. I always try and make things as simple as possible. It gets me in trouble sometimes but usually works out OK. Great thread!

 

[Pox in a box]

Copy the post previous to yours and add. List the errors and omissions you find. Include the page number(s), section, and the correction that needs to be made. Also list the source if you know one to validate your correction.

1. Page 226 - Pathology (Neoplastic) - Tumor Suppressor genes; DCC (Gene) - 18q (Chromosome) - Colon cancer (Associated tumor); DCC should also be associated with gastric carcinoma.

2. Color Image 104 - Pathology - Sarcoidosis. Necrotizing sarcoid granuloma with macrophage infiltrates and caseation. Change to "Non-caseating sarcoid granuloma with macrophage infiltrates."

3. Page 242 - Pathology - Crohn's disease and cystic fibrosis should be listed as risk factors for pigment stones, not cholesterol stones. Refer to Robbins (7th ed.).

4. Page 136 - Biochemistry - "Eukaryotes have separate polymerases for synthesizing RNA primers..." Change to "...DNA primers..."

 

[edgesofsanity]

I don't know if these quite fit, but here are some questions I have:

1.) p. 264, Diagnosis of MI. States that "CK-MB is test of choice for first 24 hours"; Qbank claims Troponin for the first 8 hours, and then CK-MB. Also, the peaks on the graph differ between the two.

2.) p. 268, Temporal arteritis. States "affects medium and small arteries"; Robbin's 7th states can affect aorta as well (giant cell aortitis)

Any thoughts?

 

[bigfrank]

Excellent points, but I'm not sure if this thread is focused on Step I relevant material in terms of the detail.

It's just so easy to get bogged down on the minutiae and miss the "forest," so to speak.......

 

[Ramoray]

I'm a little rusty re: pathology, but I believe that "Non-caseating necrotizing" is a contradictory phrase. I'd just stick with non-caseating.

Not to get caught in minutia and i know this has no relevance to step but necrotizing is a general term whereas caseating is a further classification ofl a necrotizing reaction so you can def. have that phrase, the granuloma is necrotizing but it is not of the caseating type. That is my understanding atleast, not that it matters but just thougth id would point it out.

 

[Chandler]

Not to get caught in minutia and i know this has no relevance to step but necrotizing is a general term whereas caseating is a further classification ofl a necrotizing reaction so you can def. have that phrase, the granuloma is necrotizing but it is not of the caseating type. That is my understanding atleast, not that it matters but just thougth id would point it out.

Anyone notice that First Aid for 2005 claims 20% completely new material on the back cover?

Also the claim that there are over 900 frequently tested facts and mnemonics from students who have just taken the exam is hilarious.

Vikas Bhushan and Tao Le get an A+ for marketing, but an F for integrity. The claim that there is 20% new material from the 2004 edition is a blatant lie. I have taken the time to annotate the 2004 and 2005 editions and there is no way that there is that much of a difference between the two editions.

 

[Pox in a box]

Anyone notice that First Aid for 2005 claims 20% completely new material on the back cover?

Also the claim that there are over 900 frequently tested facts and mnemonics from students who have just taken the exam is hilarious.

Vikas Bhushan and Tao Le get an A+ for marketing, but an F for integrity. The claim that there is 20% new material from the 2004 edition is a blatant lie. I have taken the time to annotate the 2004 and 2005 editions and there is no way that there is that much of a difference between the two editions.

This has been discussed in this thread: First Aid For Usmle Step 1 Is A Fraud!

 

[automaton]

page 91. it says teres minor adducts the arm. what the hell?

 

[Pox in a box]

On page 341, First Aid says "S3---at end of rapid ventricular filling." Isn't it at the beginning (according to the Wigger diagram on the same page)? Any thoughts?

 

[adrenal_medulla]

page 91. it says teres minor adducts the arm. what the...?

It says the same thing here

What bothers you about it?

 

[automaton]

It says the same thing here

What bothers you about it?

oh ok. so now my question is... how does a muscle in the back help adduct an arm? wouldn't have to be in the front?

 

[adrenal_medulla]

not really. it would just need to be attached to the humerus somewhere below the axis of rotation (middle of the rotator cuff) and then be attached anywhere medially from there. I think its main job is lateral rotation, though.

 

[automaton]

ah ok, now i see. thank you good sir. 🙂

 

[Chandler]

Since we are in anatomy. I will throw one out there as a review. Acting bilaterally what movement would the external oblique muscles produce on the vertebra column? Extension, Lateral Flexion, Flexion, or Rotation. 😉

 

[adrenal_medulla]

Since we are in anatomy. I will throw one out there as a review. Acting bilaterally what movement would the external oblique muscles produce on the vertebra column? Extension, Lateral Flexion, Flexion, or Rotation. 😉

flexion, of course. But don't forget the even more important action of aiding in defecation!

 

[Pox in a box]

flexion, of course. But don't forget the even more important action of aiding in defecation!

Why isn't alcohol listed as a teratogen on page 74? I'd think that epidemiologically it would be the most common teratogenic impetus in fetal development. Alcohol, besides causing fetal alcohol syndrome, can interrupt mitosis, cause microcephaly, mental ******ation, hypoglycemia, and many other symptoms. Fortunately it is listed on page 223 and labeled as a teratogen.

 

[Kaposi]

Also, on Pox, (I maybe wrong) but I think Crohn's is correctly listed as a risk factor for Cholesterol stones - idea being Crohn's or ileal resection or any disease affecting enterocytes in terminal ileum decrease the 95% absorption of 2secondary bile acids used in making more bile salts. (So, upregulated LDL cholesterol receptors on hepatocytes - more cholesterol used in making 1primary bile acids incorporated into bile (higher Chol content) ---- Cholesterol stones
( I have the old Robbins, so don't know the reference in 7th ed.)


CF (or liver/biliary obstruction) probably should listed as a risk factor for both pigment or Chol stones. Me thinks.

 

[bgabes]

Hi,
Has anyone else noticed that the pages for the organ-system cross reference (located on the back of the cover) are wrong...anyone know where I could go about getting correct references (other than just looking them up myself)?

Brian

 

[Pox in a box]

Hi,
Has anyone else noticed that the pages for the organ-system cross reference (located on the back of the cover) are wrong...anyone know where I could go about getting correct references (other than just looking them up myself)?

Brian

Much of the index is incorrect as well.

 

[automaton]

p 147 FA 2005:
"NADPH is the product of the malate dehydrogenase reaction"

Doesn't the malate dehydrogenase reaction (malate --> OAA) generate NADH instead of NADPH?

 

[Doc Ivy]

p 147 FA 2005:
"NADPH is the product of the malate dehydrogenase reaction"

Doesn't the malate dehydrogenase reaction (malate --> OAA) generate NADH instead of NADPH?

Nope, this is true--- the HMP shunt provides most NADPH but malic enzyme contributes a little too--

Anyone notice how the coagulation pathway on page 350 of the 2005 FA is just wrong! Where the hell is factor VIII?? 😕

 

[HiddenTruth]

Nope, this is true--- the HMP shunt provides most NADPH but malic enzyme contributes a little too--

Anyone notice how the coagulation pathway on page 350 of the 2005 FA is just wrong! Where the hell is factor VIII?? 😕

Be careful, don't confuse malic enzyme with malate dehydrogenase. Automaton is right (i'm not sure what's in FA, as i don't have it in front of me), but malate dehydrogenase catalyzes Malate --> OAA which reduces NAD to NADH. While, maliz enzyme is used in FA synthesis, converting Malate-->Pyruvate to go back into the mito to crank out more acetyl coa in the form of citrate, and this is another source of NADPH (primary being HMPS).

As a side note, you guys may know this, but they always forget (in various books) to write in glc-->soribitol as a reaction which oxidizes NADPH-->NADP (just my two cents).

 

[Doc Ivy]

Be careful, don't confuse malic enzyme with malate dehydrogenase. Automaton is right (i'm not sure what's in FA, as i don't have it in front of me), but malate dehydrogenase catalyzes Malate --> OAA which reduces NAD to NADH. While, maliz enzyme is used in FA synthesis, converting Malate-->Pyruvate to go back into the mito to crank out more acetyl coa in the form of citrate, and this is another source of NADPH (primary being HMPS).

As a side note, you guys may know this, but they always forget (in various books) to write in glc-->soribitol as a reaction which oxidizes NADPH-->NADP (just my two cents).

Nice catch. Biochem is the bane of my existence.

 

[baoflex]

pg 135 indicates that nucleotides are linked by 3' to 5' phosphodiesterase bond, should read phosphodiester.

figure on page 343 is mixed up. phosphorylation of myosin leads to cross cross bridge formation and contraction, not dephosphorylation

on page 309 it seems that the figure is incorrect, and it should have increased symphathetic discharge rather than decreased sympathetic discharge

 

[betz]

FA pg 115......

Shouldnt this read if the confidence interval includes ONE, the null hypothesis is accepted?

 

[bluesdude]

FA pg 115......

Shouldnt this read if the confidence interval includes ONE, the null hypothesis is accepted?

according to kaplan lecture notes we never accept the null hypothesis. we either reject or fail to reject it.

 

[Pox in a box]

according to kaplan lecture notes we never accept the null hypothesis. we either reject or fail to reject it.

You're right. There are never certainties on that one.

 

[fukdbyMIT]

Error on pg 369 of the physio section. Rectum is retroperitoneal, ie: has no mesentery. Labeled wrongly in the diagram. Also contradicted by page 87 of FA 2005. U should look at old editions of FA and compare it to the new 2005 edition for inconsistencies. A lot of the new material has errors.



------------------------------------
- Don't get fvcked by the institvte.