A 2-day-old newborn undergoes routine newborn screening. An abnormal test result for galactosemia is reported. The physician asks the laboratory to share the number of true positives (those testing positive who have the disease) divided by the number of all those with the disease. Measurement of which of the following is being calculated? Confidence interval Prevalence e. Specificity

A 2-day-old newborn undergoes routine newborn screening. An abnormal test result for galactosemia is reported. The physician asks the laboratory to share the number of true positives (those testing positive who have the disease) divided by the number of all those with the disease. Measurement of which of the following is being calculated? Confidence interval Prevalence e. Specificity

Similar questions

A.Develop a resistance training program for a 33 year old male marathon runner that is entering the preseason, include specific exercises, loads/sets/reps, rest cycles, and frequency of training. B.Explain your plan for progression.
An epidemiologist wants to evaluate the most effective method to teach the public about preventative health. They compare the following 3 treatments; using models on their posters with information about healthy habits, having social media influencers post about healthy habits, and having actors on TV commercials describe healthy habits. Which of the following tests is appropriate for this study?
24. True or false? Prior to calculating cumulative incidence, prevalent cases should be removed from the denominator.
Match as appropriate Sensitivity Specificity Predictive value of a positive test or positive predictive value Predictive value of a negative test or negative predictive value A. Ability of a screening test to correctly identify all screened individuals who have the disease or outcome of interest B. Probability of someone screened negative to actually not have the disease or outcome of interest C. Probability of someone screened positive to actually have the disease or outcome of interest D. Ability of a screening test to correctly rule out individuals who actually do not have the disease or outcome of interest
Answer each question by itself 1. What are the top 5 causes of death in the United States for 2020? 2. How have these changed over the past 10 years? 3. Which of the top 5 causes of death can be attributable to communicable disease, non-communicable disease, and/or environmental diseases and injury? Do they have multiple causes? 4. Relating the top causes of mortality to "actual" causes of death (Table SO3.2), what cause would your group decided to focus public health initiatives to reduce mortality in America today? Why? Table is found on page 127 of your text in Section III. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm I need questions 2-4. I already have question 1
List any prevention techniques to help reduce duplication from occurring MPI
Match the epidemiology study with the information that best corresponds with it. Generally provides the best, most controlled data Retrospective, and inclusive of those with disease Prospective, and focused on exposure status Provides limited means for testing of hypothesis Clinical Trial Cross Sectional Cohort Case Control
Please answer fast
There are multiple epidemiologic study designs. Study designs can be categorized as an experimental or observational design. What is the primary difference between the two? (Choose the one best answer) 1. In an experimental design, the outcome/disease is assigned 2. In an observational design, the outcome/disease is assigned 3. In an experimental design, the exposure/treatment is assigned 4. In an observational design, the exposure/treatment is assigned 5. They are both epidemiologic study designs without a distinct difference
How might the offer of a financial incentive influence sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening rates? Financial incentives are likely to have no effect on STI screening rates as the main deterrents are fear of stigma and embarrassment. The presence of a financial incentive might allow for external attributions of behavior, mitigating the embarrassment associated with STI screening and potentially increasing participation Financial incentives could exacerbate the stigma associated with STI screening, leading to decreased participation Offering financial incentives might increase anxiety about having to inform partners in the case of a positive result, leading to lower screening rates
Refer to the following study regarding oral contraceptive use and urinary tract infections to answer the questions. An epidemiologic study was conducted on 1400 female 1st year university students to investigate whether the use of oral contraceptives (OC) increased the risk of developing a urinary tract infections. After assessing for OC use it was found that 482 women used OC and 1908 women who did not. The women were followed for 3 years. Within the 3 years, 27 users and 77 non-users developed a urinary tract infection. What type of study is this? Women who were in the oral contraceptive group were more likely to have sex than those in the non-user group. Is this an example of chance, bias, or confounding? Investigators checked the urine of OC users more than non-users. Is this an example of chance, bias, or confounding? Investigators were able to get follow-up information on 40% of the initial participants. The remaining 60% were not included in the study. Which type of bias is this…
Could you please write a claim and evidence for number 1 and 2. The evidence should be from the chart above.