2 ms·
Yes, the article seemed to be making two different points and got a little directionless as a result: * Half of all women will get false positives - that's a l
by rkangel 5y ago
Yes, the article seemed to be making two different points and got a little directionless as a result:
* Half of all women will get false positives - that's a lot, it's not great, people will think they have cancer and we should set expectations
* Despite the introduction of a newer technology to improve false positives (3D scanning) we've only improved the situation from 56% to 50%
- labcomputer 5y ago> only improved the situation from 56% to 50% But isn't that millions of fewer false positive results over 10 years? Assumptions: * US Women: ~150e6 * Fraction getting annual mamograms: ~1/3 (life expectancy of 80yrs, and mamograms during 30 of those years, minus some with poor access to health care) * Reduction in cumulative FP rate over 10 year period: 6% 150e6 x 0.33 * 0.06 = ~3e6 fewer false positive results over a 10 year period. That seems like a significant effect size to me.
- Dylan16807 5y agoIt's significant but it's also pathetic. The false positive rate is really high.