@Ahmed7 this is marked as HY on AMBOSS and mentioned on FA2023. When you say “acceptable rationale”, what additional resources do you need on top of that? Or is the only way to fix misleading information that didn’t specifically show up on “test” is by changing it locally?
@oneMedGuy To denote whether something is high yield, the best objective method for us as maintainers is to see what AMBOSS/UWorld/NBME are specifically testing in forms of questions. There is a ton of “key exam info” highlighted in AMBOSS article, while yes it might be “key exam info”, this term is subjective, but questions directly testing the information is a better guide for us to see what changes are necessary or not.
This deck was made to make users score the highest on Step 1/2/3. Our level of technicality should match what is required by what NBME is examining/wants examined, even if that means slightly outdated/slightly incorrect information.
Too much unnecessary nuance (made to a lot of cards over time for example) will be detrimental to users, as this level of detail will also be applied to the 35,000+ users that use this deck daily. If a change is technically more correct, but this leads to poorer retention/performance on questions because of said change, then that is a net negative change for our specific purposes.
I hope that makes sense, I appreciate all the changes you have been making. As the deck subscriber base grows larger, we have significantly tightened our criteria for what should be changed and what should not.
There have been some previous specific changes based on what AMBOSS says which directly results in a missed UWorld question, which we are trying to avoid as much as possible by covering all bases and checking questions to get the bigger picture of what is truly testable and what is not super necessary in the grand scheme of things (e.g. adding discrepancies when necessary to extra between resources).
Thank you once again for all your efforts 
Please let me know if you have any other questions
@Ahmed7 I understand that. However, I don’t believe changing an unnecessarily specific type of shigella to including all shigella spp. (like done in both FA2023 and AMBOSS) can in any way make the card more nuanced. The only reason I suggested this was because it was more confusing that it should be, as it suggests all other shigella spp. didn’t produce toxins. It also could easily lead to a missed question if any other Shigella Spp. was mentioned on the exam, as this explicitly indicates it’s the only toxigenic species. There’s nearly 36,000 cards on this deck, many with misleading/missing information. I don’t believe ignoring information consistent FA2023 and HY on AMBOSS because it “hasn’t yet been specifically tested” is the best way going forward with this deck.
I will let the maintainers discuss here, open to discussion regarding this
Appreciate the points brought up here but in AMBOSS’ hemolytic uremic syndrome article they specifically point to the Shiga toxin produced by Shigella dysenteriae as being an etiology of HUS, which I think is the important point here, and don’t generalize to all Shigella spp.
We have nid:1510186864984, which I don’t think would hurt to generalize to all Shigella spp. Would like to see more convincing evidence in practice Qs before changing here though.
While most shigella species produce the toxin, S. dysenteriae is most identified pathogen in most cases of HUS, apart from E. coli O157H7 (EHEC). Outside of developing countries, cases of HUS related to S. sonnei are largely unreported.
The context of the question scenario is more important that the generalization.