3 ms·
I very much doubt users — let alone physicians — would be making treatment decisions on the basis of an automated testing regime. In the event of abnormalities
by rosser 11y ago
I very much doubt users — let alone physicians — would be making treatment decisions on the basis of an automated testing regime. In the event of abnormalities on an automated test, you'd see your doctor, discuss, and order repeat and/or follow-up testing to confirm, refute, or clarify.
Moreover, you'd also gain a very wide, data-rich baseline to compare subsequent results against, which would probably counter most of the over-diagnosis and allow for long-term trending of very important data.
It would, IMO, be wholly worth the risks you raise.
- icebraining 11y agoThe problem is more subtle than simply doing a procedure based on faulty data - it's the invasive procedures done based on indication of a potential problem, often done to reduce risk without necessarily improving (and in fact, occasionally reducing) the health of the patient, simply because the patients discover they have some anomaly that may cause a real problem (like cancer) in the future, and they don't want to live in fear. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/11/robert_aronowit.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/11/robert_aronowit.htm...
- DanBC 11y agoYour answer to "people are going to be over diagnosed and over treated" is "but they'll talk to their doctor" - but that already happens in the US and the massive over testing, over diagnosis and over treatment already causes great harm, and it's the doctors who are doing it.