4 ms·
Maybe, although I doubt it. It would mean that they put in extra research to, for example, plot an ROC curve and see what the optimal threshold for the test wou
by leto_ii 6y ago
Maybe, although I doubt it. It would mean that they put in extra research to, for example, plot an ROC curve and see what the optimal threshold for the test would be.
Even if that was the case, you can still frame the question in terms of cost/benefits. The electronic test is, let's say, 10 times more expensive than a basic one. Is it more reliable than taking 10 basic tests (maybe at different times) and averaging the results? Probably not.
- eru 6y ago> Even if that was the case, you can still frame the question in terms of cost/benefits. The electronic test is, let's say, 10 times more expensive than a basic one. Is it more reliable than taking 10 basic tests (maybe at different times) and averaging the results? Probably not. Food that costs ten times more usually doesn't taste ten times as good. Perhaps twice as good. It can still be worth it. Convenience and time have value, too.
- arsome 6y agoI mean the giveaway to me seems to be the fact that they don't seem to include an "inconclusive" state.
- wbl 6y agoThe levels of hCG are two orders of magnitude larger post conception and rise to five orders of magnitude a month post conception. The antibodies the test uses are extremely selective.
- andi999 6y agoAveraging is thr worst. No laymen would know what 80% pregnant means. Better use majority vote.
- leto_ii 6y agoIndeed. Majority vote is actually what I wanted to say :">
- s1artibartfast 6y agoThis is the beauty of market options. We can both have our cake and eat it too. No need to judge others and their product choices, just buy what you want. If you want, you can buy 10 cheaper strips, Try different lighting and times of day, then take the numeric average. I can buy a more expensive digital strip simply because I like the box's color.