Thanks, the overall explanation makes sense now. > The technology 23andMe uses is wrong about 1/10,000 times Is 23andMe's tech considered state-of-the-art? I'

Thanks, the overall explanation makes sense now. > The technology 23andMe uses is wrong about 1/10,000 times Is 23andMe's tech considered state-of-the-art? I'm assuming there are ways to reduce both the false positive and false negative rate and I'm curious how other labs/tech stack up against these rates.