4 ms·

Well, yes, it's only worth running a screening programme if you have a usefully accurate test and if you can then make some useful intervention after a positive

Well, yes, it's only worth running a screening programme if you have a usefully accurate test and if you can then make some useful intervention after a positive result. Is anyone here disagreeing with that, though? Maybe we interpreted OP's comment that you quoted differently? I read it as being in favour of preventative medicine as a whole, not necessarily endorsing this specific test at this specific point in time. Maybe I'm also interpreting some of the other comments in this discussion, including yours, differently to how their authors intended them. My concern is that as written they appear to be criticising all use of screening, regardless of its efficacy, which is extremely dangerous.

jacquesm 5y ago
That certainly isn't the goal, it is strictly meant within the context as established by the root comment. To present this at the present time as a revolutionary breakthrough and to suggest using this test in particular for mass screening is not a path that will lead to a good outcome unless a lot more data is gathered to support that position. The people that have built this are at the forefront of this field, I've been following them for quite a while - since the announcement in March last year - it has direct bearing on some other things that I'm involved with and I'm hopeful that it will at first be a useful diagnostic tool and that in a later stage - after the kinks have been worked out and there is sufficient data - that it might help with more than that. Preventative medicine obviously has its place and for selected cancers we are now in a phase where early detection leads to improved outcomes. But we should continue to be weary of overselling this - the same has already happened with other cancer tests. Absent symptoms mass testing has serious risks and these will obviously be taken into account when setting policy, the article is actually reasonably neutral in this respect so I wonder why it leads to an immediate response that is equating this with a medical revolution. It may well be, but there is no evidence right now that this is the case.

jacquesm 5y ago

That certainly isn't the goal, it is strictly meant within the context as established by the root comment. To present this at the present time as a revolutionary breakthrough and to suggest using this test in particular for mass screening is not a path that will lead to a good outcome unless a lot more data is gathered to support that position. The people that have built this are at the forefront of this field, I've been following them for quite a while - since the announcement in March last year - it has direct bearing on some other things that I'm involved with and I'm hopeful that it will at first be a useful diagnostic tool and that in a later stage - after the kinks have been worked out and there is sufficient data - that it might help with more than that. Preventative medicine obviously has its place and for selected cancers we are now in a phase where early detection leads to improved outcomes. But we should continue to be weary of overselling this - the same has already happened with other cancer tests. Absent symptoms mass testing has serious risks and these will obviously be taken into account when setting policy, the article is actually reasonably neutral in this respect so I wonder why it leads to an immediate response that is equating this with a medical revolution. It may well be, but there is no evidence right now that this is the case.