Anybody get stressed by FA errata?

[Jonari]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Not stressed by sheer volume of mistakes, but rather the corrections make me question the validity of the source where they got the information. For instance, Ehlers-Danlos type III should be changed to type V, which is most commonly associated with class EDS.

This article says it should be Type I, but it's from 2000. I can't find any recent articles talking about Type V.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288203/

Another example, the amount of ATP made by a TCA/Krebs Cycle. Errata says it should be 10, not 12. 😕

 

[Old Style Nanny]

This article says it should be Type I, but it's from 2000. I can't find any recent articles talking about Type V.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288203/

Don't remember where I looked this up, but I did look it up. Classical ED is Type I & V while vascular ED is III.

Another example, the amount of ATP made by a TCA/Krebs Cycle. Errata says it should be 10, not 12. 😕

Both are correct. If you use the conventional NADH = 3 ATP, FADH = 2 ATP formula you get 12. If you use the more accurate NADH = 2.5 ATP, FADH = 1.5 ATP formula, you get 10.

 

[Jonari]

Don't remember where I looked this up, but I did look it up. Classical ED is Type I & V while vascular ED is III.



Both are correct. If you use the conventional NADH = 3 ATP, FADH = 2 ATP formula you get 12. If you use the more accurate NADH = 2.5 ATP, FADH = 1.5 ATP formula, you get 10.

Just worried that both answers of 10 and 12 are on there, then what do you do?

 

[Zzmed]

Not stressed by sheer volume of mistakes, but rather the corrections make me question the validity of the source where they got the information. For instance, Ehlers-Danlos type III should be changed to type V, which is most commonly associated with class EDS.

This article says it should be Type I, but it's from 2000. I can't find any recent articles talking about Type V.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288203/

Another example, the amount of ATP made by a TCA/Krebs Cycle. Errata says it should be 10, not 12. 😕

Just have faith in FA! Almost everybody depends on it.
BUT if you have doubt for something just double check it in review books, Qbanks etc etc.
If there is an actual difference between them (i.e a controversial topic like "search it in pubmed" controversial) then you probably won't be tested on this one.

 

[ijn]

The USMLE is not going to test you on the subtypes of Ehlers-Danlos.

 

[WarriorMD]

Just worried that both answers of 10 and 12 are on there, then what do you do?

12 is theoretical yield, 10 is actual.
There's a bunch of things where I have 2 right answers in my mind and I really hope it doesn't cost me points.

 

[smartparts]

The USMLE is not going to test you on the subtypes of Ehlers-Danlos.

This. They will also not test you on the number of ATP produced.

 

[raiaxunmucha02]

Doesn't add up.

 

[Geekchick921]

The sheer volume is stressing me. We just started our last block before our dedicated study period and I figured I need to finally put all the corrections into my copy of FA 2012. I'm only two pages in and I'm ready to burn the damn thing and order 2013, even without the errata yet. It's ridiculous. This table's all wrong... rewrite the whole thing. This picture's confusing and missing things... I guess you should print the new one out and tape it into your book.

I'm just really irritated. The newest errata has 22 pages of what the editors describe as "major" mistakes. Have previous years been this bad? It's disgraceful. 😡

 

[FIREitUP]

The sheer volume is stressing me. We just started our last block before our dedicated study period and I figured I need to finally put all the corrections into my copy of FA 2012. I'm only two pages in and I'm ready to burn the damn thing and order 2013, even without the errata yet. It's ridiculous. This table's all wrong... rewrite the whole thing. This picture's confusing and missing things... I guess you should print the new one out and tape it into your book.

I'm just really irritated. The newest errata has 22 pages of what the editors describe as "major" mistakes. Have previous years been this bad? It's disgraceful. 😡

the switch over to color was too much for them it seems. just buy the 2013 and be done with it, you don't want to worry about printing out a whole new page for the renal transporters since that whole page is wrong.

 

[jy846]

The sheer volume is stressing me. We just started our last block before our dedicated study period and I figured I need to finally put all the corrections into my copy of FA 2012. I'm only two pages in and I'm ready to burn the damn thing and order 2013, even without the errata yet. It's ridiculous. This table's all wrong... rewrite the whole thing. This picture's confusing and missing things... I guess you should print the new one out and tape it into your book.

I'm just really irritated. The newest errata has 22 pages of what the editors describe as "major" mistakes. Have previous years been this bad? It's disgraceful. 😡

Every year 2nd years all ask the same question whether or not has it always been this bad and the answer is always YES.

It doesn't matter what edition you get, there will always be tons of mistakes. You should buy the 2013 regardless and as usual, expect mistakes.