3 ms·

Less information is better? That would be a bit of a paradox in science. I suppose we might take 2 steps forward and 1 step backward in the short term. As med

Less information is better? That would be a bit of a paradox in science. I suppose we might take 2 steps forward and 1 step backward in the short term. As medical science advances, hopefully we can address any shortcomings from the additional early knowledge. I noticed that pancreatic is on the list. This cancer is almost always fatal because we can't detect it early.

jacquesm 5y ago
No, that's not the point. On an individual basis knowing for sure that a person who has symptoms has cancer, especially what kind of cancer, is a positive. On a population scale knowing that people without symptoms may have cancer with an 0.5% false positive rate and an 18-50% true positive rate is quite possibly a negative.
cortesoft 5y ago
> Less information is better? This really depends. Information that does not help make a good decision is just noise. It might seem like diagnostic information should always help make a good decision, but that isn’t always the case. If the false positive rate is higher than the base rate, a positive test would be more likely to be wrong than right, even with a very high accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
Fomite 5y ago
Less information can be better. Or more accurately, conditional probabilities can be better than unconditional probabilities. For example, a large number of unnecessary antibiotic treatments, which fuel resistance, are triggered by doing diagnostic testing on patients with no symptoms. "Diagnostic stewardship" is a concept that exists for a reason.
colinmhayes 5y ago
People are idiots that don't understand statistics. Telling them they tested positive is all they hear, and it leads to them making subpar decisions that often involve invasive surgery. Yes, it's paternalistic, but the fact is most people aren't informed enough to make medical decisions for themselves.

jacquesm 5y ago

No, that's not the point. On an individual basis knowing for sure that a person who has symptoms has cancer, especially what kind of cancer, is a positive. On a population scale knowing that people without symptoms may have cancer with an 0.5% false positive rate and an 18-50% true positive rate is quite possibly a negative.

cortesoft 5y ago

> Less information is better? This really depends. Information that does not help make a good decision is just noise. It might seem like diagnostic information should always help make a good decision, but that isn’t always the case. If the false positive rate is higher than the base rate, a positive test would be more likely to be wrong than right, even with a very high accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

Fomite 5y ago

Less information can be better. Or more accurately, conditional probabilities can be better than unconditional probabilities. For example, a large number of unnecessary antibiotic treatments, which fuel resistance, are triggered by doing diagnostic testing on patients with no symptoms. "Diagnostic stewardship" is a concept that exists for a reason.

colinmhayes 5y ago

People are idiots that don't understand statistics. Telling them they tested positive is all they hear, and it leads to them making subpar decisions that often involve invasive surgery. Yes, it's paternalistic, but the fact is most people aren't informed enough to make medical decisions for themselves.