The actual data is more complicated than "96% accurate", but I'm not the best person to deep dive on the numbers and give a better analysis. However from readi

The actual data is more complicated than "96% accurate", but I'm not the best person to deep dive on the numbers and give a better analysis. However from reading the abstract of the actual study, it seems the TLDR is "more accurate than current ways to test, and significantly cheaper too" - which would be a great step regardless of if it's not quite as perfect as a vague "high % accurate!" makes it sound. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768841 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768841