3 ms·

1/10 false positives doesn't sound too bad to me. Having seen older family members impacted by the disease with little to no warning, a 90% chance at early dete

• dragonwriter 9y ago
  > 1/10 false positives doesn't sound too bad to me. If the 15-year risk for the population taking the test is 10%, an unbiased 10% error rate would mean: 81% true negatives, 9% false positives, 9% true positives, 1% true negatives. > Even with a false positive, the changes you would make (lifestyle changes, brain stimulation, continuous monitoring) would only be beneficial Not if prioritizing them crowded out things you could be doing to address a real risk that is deprioritized because of the false result. And, also, of course, an error rate doesn't have to be unbiased. With the same population, a test with these results would also be 90% accurate: 90% true negatives, 10% false negatives.