3 ms·

accuracy is 90 percent

• Someone 7y ago
  That feels too low to me to be practically useful. I would guess declaring all your patients to be healthy already gets you there for many, if not most, conditions you mention in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20752782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20752782. It also seems to imply that you will have many false positives, where people will unnecessarily get stressed while waiting for follow-up tests or even receive treatments they don’t need.
  • SergeyDavydovGA 7y ago
    it must be taken into account that there will be no blood sampling, and a preliminary diagnosis will be made on one exhalation. And the price of the analysis will be quite low. Do you really consider it a bad result that today, 9 out of 10 people will be able to know exactly about the presence of cancer by taking 5 minutes of their time?
    • Someone 7y ago
      As I said, one likely can do better in one second, by telling everyone they’re healthy. If five out of a hundred people have a disease, you even can get 90% accuracy by declaring those five healthy and five others unhealthy. Accuracy is fairly meaningless for this kind of thing. What sensitivity and specificity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity) will these tests have?