INVISTA NO SEU SUCESSO:
Step 1 candidates shared insights into preparation, exam-day strategies, and recommended resources. For exam logistics, understanding break protocols is crucial. Authorized breaks can be taken after completing a block by selecting the “Start Break” option on the screen, and re-entry requires the CIN number provided by the test center. Suspicious activities like leaving during a block (unauthorized break) may trigger warnings. On preparation, Mehlman PDFs were repeatedly suggested, especially the HY Arrows, Endocrine, and Neuroanatomy PDFs, alongside First Aid and UWorld as foundational resources. Users also stressed the importance of reviewing NBME errors and free resources like NBME 29–31 and Free 120, which mirror real exam patterns. For subjects like biostatistics and ethics, users reported these are high-yield areas requiring minimal calculations but foundational understanding.
In terms of study planning, NBME assessments were prioritized for gauging readiness. Specific suggestions included focusing on NBME explanations to reinforce weak areas and using Mehlman sheets for targeted review in subjects like immunology, cardiovascular, and renal systems. For example, FA’s MHC I vs. MHC II table and transplant rejection topics were highlighted for immunology. For cardiovascular topics, users recommended audio playlists in addition to UWorld. Reviewers agreed that NBME concepts are heavily tested, with advice to master these through resources like Mehlman HY concepts, First Aid, and UWorld corrections. In the last few weeks, focusing on frequently tested areas like biochemical pathways (starvation/feeding states, insulin, gluconeogenesis), neuroanatomy, and endocrine disorders (e.g., 17-hydroxyprogesterone disorders) was emphasized.
For study schedules, users advised completing UWorld in full while maintaining focus on weak areas. Recommendations for structuring time included solving 40 UWorld questions per day, reviewing corresponding errors, and integrating Anki cards or handwritten notes for retention. Video resources like Pathoma, Boards and Beyond (BnB), and Sketchy were suggested to solidify understanding of weak subjects such as microbiology or pulmonology. Lastly, candidates stressed reviewing NBME 25–31, revisiting key images from NBMEs, and using high-yield Mehlman PDFs for rapid last-minute reinforcement. These strategies, combined with good time management and confidence-building exercises, were widely endorsed as key to success.
This post discusses logistics and protocols for the Step 1 exam day, highlighting concerns about taking breaks and avoiding exam suspension. The poster is unsure how to ensure authorized breaks are taken correctly and asks for advice on what else to expect.
Responses clarify that authorized breaks can be taken between blocks, during which a CIN number is required for re-entry, while unauthorized breaks during a block could be flagged. Commenters also emphasize time management and suggest taking shorter breaks early on to maximize energy.
The author seeks advice for the final two days before their exam and whether to review NBMEs.
The single response strongly advises reviewing NBME assessments, focusing on mistakes to learn from them. It also suggests a quick review of high-yield topics, such as statistics, ethics, and assessment images, to solidify critical content before test day.
A time-sensitive post requesting recommendations on high-yield Mehlman PDFs for Step 1 preparation.
The response recommends focusing on HY Arrows, endocrine, and pathology, highlighting these as essential last-minute resources for efficient studying.
The user is unsure whether to proceed with their exam on November 14th or delay, sharing NBME scores showing an improving trend but moderate confidence levels.
Commenters provide mixed advice. Some encourage taking the test given the scores, especially with additional reviews of wrong answers and resources like HY Arrows PDFs. Others suggest delaying if confidence is still low and recommend additional NBMEs, particularly NBME 30, for further evaluation.
The post outlines a study plan leading up to an exam on December 11th, focusing on a second FA pass and uncertainty about whether to incorporate Mehlman PDFs.
Commenters largely suggest prioritizing HY resources like arrows, neuroanatomy, and risk factors if the user identifies weak areas. Some advise against overloading with new materials and recommend focusing on what has already been reviewed, depending on time constraints.
The author inquires whether the 2024 Free 120 overlaps with the 2021 version.
Replies indicate no repeated questions between the 2024 and 2021 versions but note some overlap between 2024 and 2022. Commenters recommend doing both the latest and older versions for comprehensive coverage, and one offers to share a PDF with unique questions.
The author requests advice on which Mehlman PDFs to prioritize and asks about heavily tested subjects based on recent test-taker experiences.
Responses suggest focusing on arrows, risk factors, immunology, neuroanatomy, and any personal weak areas. Recent takers mention reproductive and endocrine topics as prominent on recent exams.
The author’s exam was canceled due to a Prometric center closure, leaving them unable to find available dates within their EP. They ask about obtaining an EP extension or region change.
A response encourages calling ECFMG directly for faster assistance, citing past experiences of quick resolution through phone contact versus email.
The author seeks a speaking partner for OET preparation.
One commenter expresses interest in joining for practice, planning to start sessions in a few days.
The author asks about receiving results for their November 5th exam, questioning whether to expect them this Wednesday or the next.
Commenters share similar test dates and anticipate results next Wednesday, mentioning the disappearance of the ECFMG scheduling permit as a potential sign of imminent results.
A quick query on whether to do UWorld blocks by topic or cover all material first and switch to random blocks.
The only comment suggests discussing further details privately.
A non-US IMG asks about requirements to match into a pediatrics residency and how competitive the specialty is.
A response outlines key steps: passing USMLE exams, maintaining strong academics, engaging in research (preferably pediatrics-focused), and pursuing 3 months of electives early on.
The author, who tested on November 2nd, asks when to expect results and what it means if the scheduling permit disappears.
Comments discuss permit disappearance as a potential sign of result availability and suggest checking the ECFMG account for updates. Some expect results next week, while others report varying timelines.
The author seeks advice on whether to attempt NBME 26 or older NBMEs next, having completed 70% of UWorld.
The response recommends NBME 26, likely due to its alignment with current exam content and its diagnostic utility.
After a two-year break, the author resumed preparation and plans to sit for the exam in two months. They ask if focusing on UWorld and Anki cards is realistic.
A detailed comment advises creating a weekly/monthly plan and suggests taking an NBME for realistic pacing. They caution against overestimating short-term readiness due to the long study gap.
The post asks about results for October 30th test-takers and how to check them.
Comments confirm results should be out the next day via email notification, while some express anxiety over pass rates.
The author invites test-takers from November 12th to share their experiences.
Responses describe the test as lengthy with challenging long stems. Heavily tested areas included renal, biochemistry, ethics, and gastrointestinal. Strategies like elimination and focused PDFs are highlighted.
The author shares recent NBME scores and asks for advice to improve before next month’s exam.
The response emphasizes reviewing NBME explanations thoroughly and incorporating Mehlman PDFs for weak subjects to strengthen understanding.
The poster, an M2 student, seeks advice on improving retention and connections while studying for Step 1. They’ve completed most topics but are unsure how to approach practice questions, videos, and supplemental resources like Mehlman PDFs or Pathoma revisits.
The response suggests focusing on high-yield NBME images, which are frequently tested. This aligns with the poster's need for targeted, efficient study strategies to strengthen weak areas and prepare for practice questions.
After failing Step 1 twice, the author is debating whether to retry UWorld or switch to other resources like Kaplan, Amboss, or Medbullets.
The comment suggests focusing on concept building, emphasizing UWorld’s strengths. It also recommends finding an accountability partner and reviewing previous preparation strategies, including NBME scores, to identify weak areas.
The poster asks for tips on balancing Step 1 prep with a full-time physician job.
A response shares a successful experience with 3–4 hours of daily study after work. Key resources include UWorld, First Aid, and NBMEs, with consistency emphasized as crucial for maintaining progress despite a busy schedule.
The author asks about experimental questions and key exam-day considerations.
The response highlights that experimental questions are indistinguishable but advises thorough preparation with UWorld, First Aid, HY NBME images, and Mehlman PDFs. Confidence and preparation are emphasized as the keys to success.
The post seeks input on an NBME 31 question but fails to include the image or question details.
The comment points out the missing image, noting that without it, the query cannot be addressed.
The author expresses feelings of discouragement and inconsistency while preparing for Step 1, exacerbated by seeing peers progress faster.
One commenter offers private support, emphasizing the importance of encouragement and focus during challenging times.
The poster is nervous about the cardiovascular system (CVS) and asks if using Mehlman PDFs and audio resources alongside UWorld will suffice.
The response clarifies the acronym and indirectly supports the strategy by discussing study habits. Additional advice could involve focusing on high-yield CVS resources like diagrams and pathology-focused videos.
The author is looking for a dedicated study partner for mutual motivation and focused study, specifying preferred time zones and demographics.
A detailed comment outlines how to format study partner requests effectively, emphasizing time zone alignment, expectations, and study modes (e.g., silent study, topic discussions).
The poster asks whether the FCVS trick works for IMGs while awaiting Step 1 results.
Responses vary, with some confirming it works for older accounts, while others claim it no longer provides reliable results. Most recommend waiting for the official email.
The author wants to know if Mehlman PDFs and Pathoma (1–3) are sufficient for immunology prep, as they dislike the subject.
Comments assure that these resources are more than adequate if retained well. Additional tips include focusing on MHC I vs. II, transplant reactions, and immunosuppressant mechanisms.
The author shares low NBME scores (49% and 53%) with an exam in two weeks and seeks advice.
Comments urge immediate focus on Mehlman PDFs, First Aid Rapid Review, and weak areas. They recommend taking another NBME to reassess progress and emphasize managing anxiety.
The author questions the relevance of a study resource and whether it’s worth spending time on it.
Responses suggest the material appears basic but essential, recommending coverage of core topics. Links to the list are also shared for broader discussion.
The poster anxiously awaits Step 1 results, tested on October 30th, and celebrates passing later in the update.
The post inspires a wave of encouragement and mutual prayers in the comments, with advice to stay calm and trust preparation. FMBS tricks are also discussed but found unreliable for most.
The author, an M2 student with a January–July study plan, asks for feedback on its feasibility.
The response encourages starting immediately, aligning class material with board prep, and prioritizing questions over lectures. A structured timeline combining UWorld and targeted resources is recommended.
The poster, with six weeks until their exam, shares moderate NBME scores (60–61%) and weak areas in pharmacology and biochemistry, seeking guidance.
Comments reassure that six weeks is sufficient, suggesting intensive focus on weak subjects, using Mehlman PDFs, and reassessing with NBME tests. Consistency is key.
The post debates the accuracy of a flashcard about MMA and homocysteine metabolism.
The discussion clarifies the card’s content, explaining how defects in methionine synthase and MMA CoA mutase affect metabolic pathways. Links to relevant decks are shared.
The post asks for high-yield topics from recent test-takers.
Comments list essential topics, including ethics, biostats, neuroanatomy, micro/pharm, and NBME concepts, emphasizing Mehlman PDFs and Free 120. Biochemistry (metabolic states) and cardiovascular disorders also feature prominently.
The poster struggles with pulmonology concepts and seeks efficient study strategies.
Comments recommend Physeo and Mehlman PDFs for targeted and time-efficient preparation.
The author, 112 days out from their exam, asks how to optimize study time with a focus on UWorld.
Responses propose daily schedules emphasizing UWorld blocks, concept review, and optional Anki cards. Weekly system reviews are recommended, with a focus on completing NBMEs closer to the test date.