Please help with answer

Q5.10 Using Table 3, fill in the 2x2 table below using data from the 24-month assessment. Hookworm No hookworm Total + Pooled data Annual community-wide treatment 4025 4121 Hookworm No hookworm infection Total Annual community-wide treatment School-based deworming 199 1036 1235 No shoes School-based deworming Hookworm No hookworm Total O What value is A? Annual community-wide treatment 501 2824 3325 Q5.11 What value is B? School-based deworming 5050 5823 Q5.12 Use the data to examine whether wearing shoes is a relative scale effect modifier by comparing the o What value is C? observed vs. expected joint RRs. Q5.13 First, calculate the observed RR o What value is D? . Q5.18 Then, calculate the expected RR Q5.14 Q5.19 Then, determine if effect measure modification is present on the relative/multiplicative scale. Yes o o What value is E? o No Q5.15 o What value is F? Q5.20 The study used the Kato-Katz microscopy technique instead of the newer, more sensitive qPCR Q5.16 Using the 2x2 table above, calculate the unadjusted ("crude") risk ratio of hookworm infection in technique. Which of the following biases could be introduced by using a diagnostic with imperfect this study. Do not round intermediate steps. Only round the final answer to the nearest hundredth. sensitivity in this study? Select all that apply. Final answer: o Differential misclassification of exposure o Differential misclassification of disease Q5.17 One route of transmission for hookworm is by walking barefoot in contaminated soil. In a Nondifferential misclassification of exposure hypothetical scenario, say investigators realized that some communities tended to wear shoes and other Nondifferential misclassification of disease communities tended not to wear shoes. The investigators then assessed whether shoe-wearing by Q5.21 communities was a potential effect measure modifier of the association between annual community-wide Since the study used the Kato-Katz microscopy technique instead of the newer, more sensitive qPCR treatment and hookworm infection. In addition to the pooled data above, the investigators stratified the technique, how would the estimates be affected? data based on shoe-wearing: Biased away from null (overestimated) ooo Biased towards null (underestimated) Unbiased ShoesNumber positive of Community prevalence Absolute percentage Unadjusted risk ratio p value Adjusted risk ratio* pvalue total respondents (95% CI) change from baseline (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) Hookworm 12-month assessment School-based deworming 1284 of 7957 16-1% (12.1 to 20.1) -2-4% (-10.9 to 6-1) 1 (ref) 1 (ref) Annual community-wide 984 of 8355 11-8% (9 0 to 14.6) -6-1% (-13.6 to-1-3) 0-73 (0.52 to 1-03) 0-77 (0-65 to 0-91) treatment Biannual community-wide 836 of 8177 10-2% (7-6 to 12.9) -10 4% (-15.5 to-6-0) 0.64 (0-45 to 0.92) 0-04 0-65 (0-53 to 0-78) -0-001 treatment 24-month assessment School-based deworming 972 of 7058 13-8% (10.5 to 17.0) -4.8% (-13-0 to 3.5) 1 (ref) 1 (ref) Annual community-wide 597 of 7446 8-0% (6-0 to 10.1) -9.9% (-16.8 to-3-0) 0-59 (0-42 to 0-83) 0-64 (0-52 to 0-78) treatment Biannual community-wide 453 of 7281 6-2% (4.9 to 7.5) -14-4% (-21-4 to-7.4) 0-46 (0-33 to 0-63)