5 ms·

> God dude you have no idea about what you're saying. LOOK AT THE BAYES RULE EXAMPLE. DO YOU SEE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE FALSE POSITIVE RATE? At this point

> God dude you have no idea about what you're saying. LOOK AT THE BAYES RULE EXAMPLE. DO YOU SEE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE FALSE POSITIVE RATE? At this point you respond in bad faith and are demonstrably clueless. https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/events/2015/AISB2015/proceedings/mentalIllness/Petrolini.pdf https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/events/2015/AISB2015/proceedings/m... > Despite these potential problems with classification, general medicine seems to fare much better than psychiatry in terms of accuracy and reliability. The high rates of misdiagnosis and disagreement among psychiatrists support this point: for example, Kirk, Gomory & Cohen (2013) cite a recent estimate according to which the diagnostic error rate is 38% for ADHD http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/22/Suppl_2/ii21.long http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/22/Suppl_2/ii21.long > Arthur Elstein, a cognitive psychologist interested in ‘how doctors think’, studied clinical decision making for his entire career and concluded the diagnosis is wrong 10–15% of the time.7 A diverse range of research approaches that have focused on this issue over the past several decades suggest that this estimate is very much on target.6 You keep insisting higher than average error rates are okay and worthy of medication. I'm saying they aren't. We don't agree yet you keep responding and calling me names. K. > Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time (in other words, if you have the disease, it shows that you do with 99 percent probability, and if you don't have the disease, it shows that you do not with 99 percent probability). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people. You make statements like this which are demonstrably false and insist I'm the one acting in bad faith. 1) It isn't that rare. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html#us http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html#us > Approximately 11% of children 4-17 years of age (6.4 million) have been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2011. 2) The test isn't 99% accurate. Multiple people with PHDs publish literature stating the error rate is higher than that. You repeatedly insist this one source is more reliable than any other. Great. I don't agree. 3) You insisting a high rate of diagnostic error compared to general medicine being "okay" is not going to magical change my mind.

eruditely 11y ago
You still failed to understand the bayes rule example. Look in the breast cancer example for bayes rule you retard. IT DOESN'T MATTER THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE % OF FALSE POSITIVEs. Stop using your shitty assessments go open Barkley's handbook and look at the literature. You keep struggling to understand that these odd studies are irrelevant. The literature concerning accurate adhd diagnosis is so extensive and has been beaten to death over and over again. Please just go search pubmed please. WRITE OUT BAYES RULE AND MULTIPLY IT OUT. >Arthur Elstein, a cognitive psychologist interested in ‘how doctors think’, studied clinical decision making for his entire career and concluded the diagnosis is wrong 10–15% of the time.7 A diverse range of research approaches that have focused on this issue over the past several decades suggest that this estimate is very much on target.6 Hahahahahhaaha. Again showing you don't get the bayes rule example. Look at the breast cancer example again even 99% will get a large percentage of false positives.(The base rate is so low). In psychiatry how do you expect to get it so high? Then again with Barkley(2012) we might just be able to. Why don't you get it? For 4-5% of the population, even if the test is 99% accurate you will still get a large percentage of false positives no matter what. I see you struggling so hard to keep up for failed point. You lack any familiarity of the subject matter. Again it's the relational structure of diagnosis itself. The mathematical structure of diagnosis/inference NO MATTER THE DISEASE. "https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time (in other words, if you have the disease, it shows that you do with 99 percent probability, and if you don't have the disease, it shows that you do not with 99 percent probability). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people. If your test results come back positive, what are your chances that you actually have the disease? Do you think it is approximately: (a) .99, (b) .90, (c) .10, or (d) .01? Surprisingly, the answer is (d), less than 1 percent chance that you have the disease! > Despite these potential problems with classification, general medicine seems to fare much better than psychiatry in terms of accuracy and reliability. The high rates of misdiagnosis and disagreement among psychiatrists support this point: for example, Kirk, Gomory & Cohen (2013) cite a recent estimate according to which the diagnostic error rate is 38% for ADHD You're an idiot. Once again disease assessment is much easier to assess than psychiatric assessment. Considering active experimentation with it is easier? Can't you tell why psychiatric diagnosis is much more difficult? Disease vs Disorders(?). Are you seriously appealing this? Answer it yourself, why would disease assessment be easier than psychiatric diagnosis. Say for a foot tumor or something.

eruditely 11y ago

You still failed to understand the bayes rule example. Look in the breast cancer example for bayes rule you retard. IT DOESN'T MATTER THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A LARGE % OF FALSE POSITIVEs. Stop using your shitty assessments go open Barkley's handbook and look at the literature. You keep struggling to understand that these odd studies are irrelevant. The literature concerning accurate adhd diagnosis is so extensive and has been beaten to death over and over again. Please just go search pubmed please. WRITE OUT BAYES RULE AND MULTIPLY IT OUT. >Arthur Elstein, a cognitive psychologist interested in ‘how doctors think’, studied clinical decision making for his entire career and concluded the diagnosis is wrong 10–15% of the time.7 A diverse range of research approaches that have focused on this issue over the past several decades suggest that this estimate is very much on target.6 Hahahahahhaaha. Again showing you don't get the bayes rule example. Look at the breast cancer example again even 99% will get a large percentage of false positives.(The base rate is so low). In psychiatry how do you expect to get it so high? Then again with Barkley(2012) we might just be able to. Why don't you get it? For 4-5% of the population, even if the test is 99% accurate you will still get a large percentage of false positives no matter what. I see you struggling so hard to keep up for failed point. You lack any familiarity of the subject matter. Again it's the relational structure of diagnosis itself. The mathematical structure of diagnosis/inference NO MATTER THE DISEASE. "https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time (in other words, if you have the disease, it shows that you do with 99 percent probability, and if you don't have the disease, it shows that you do not with 99 percent probability). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people. If your test results come back positive, what are your chances that you actually have the disease? Do you think it is approximately: (a) .99, (b) .90, (c) .10, or (d) .01? Surprisingly, the answer is (d), less than 1 percent chance that you have the disease! > Despite these potential problems with classification, general medicine seems to fare much better than psychiatry in terms of accuracy and reliability. The high rates of misdiagnosis and disagreement among psychiatrists support this point: for example, Kirk, Gomory & Cohen (2013) cite a recent estimate according to which the diagnostic error rate is 38% for ADHD You're an idiot. Once again disease assessment is much easier to assess than psychiatric assessment. Considering active experimentation with it is easier? Can't you tell why psychiatric diagnosis is much more difficult? Disease vs Disorders(?). Are you seriously appealing this? Answer it yourself, why would disease assessment be easier than psychiatric diagnosis. Say for a foot tumor or something.