4 ms·
As the first comment there points out, a 96% accuracy doesn't mean much without knowing the false positive and false negative rates. I have no doubt that this
by chrisa 7y ago
As the first comment there points out, a 96% accuracy doesn't mean much without knowing the false positive and false negative rates.
I have no doubt that this is good work in the right direction - but the headline alone doesn't make it a home run.
- vikramkr 7y agoI suppose in a case where like half the population had the virus those might factor less. And if the errors skew towards false positives, it could be a quick prescreen to get an enriched pool of candidates for manual checking. Definitely not a panacea yet though
- mike_n 7y agoDo human doctors have a better rate? And at what cost/throughput?
- jupp0r 7y agoThis is the base rate fallacy. return “healthy”; would have a 99.9% accuracy right now.
- droidist2 7y agoAhh, you need to use ROC AUC or something.
- contravariant 7y agoROC AUC is somewhat meaningless when basically any amount of false positives is going to massively decrease the utility of the test.
- yellow_lead 7y agoI think you have a good idea for an AI startup here.
- smacktoward 7y agoFor bonus points, have it return one out of every 1000 or so requests with "not hot dog."