3 ms·
Is 90% correct rate considered good enough for this kind of use? Seems like 1/10 wrong would be bad, how does that compare with a doctor doing it?
by jonplackett 4y ago
Is 90% correct rate considered good enough for this kind of use?
Seems like 1/10 wrong would be bad, how does that compare with a doctor doing it?
- latortuga 4y agoAccording to the American Cancer Society > About half of the women getting annual mammograms over a 10-year period will have a false-positive finding at some point.
- jonplackett 4y agoThanks. Any idea what the false negative is? I guess that’s the more important factor?
- Zacharias030 4y agoThe american screening system has very high rates of recalls to further examination (around 2-4x higher than good european screening systems). In Germany, roughly 20-25% of cancers are missed in screening (and often found 2 years later)
- Zacharias030 4y agoThe 90% accuracy figure in the article unfortunately exposes the author as very ignorant. On a German breast cancer screening population, 90% accuracy is abysmal as ~99.2% of cases are negative. Just predicting „no cancer“ would achieve 99.2% accuracy. Accuracy is a very bad metric for such highly asymmetric problems. To provide some context: The German screening system is able to identify cancer in ~6/1000 of patients screened, and missing it for the remaining 2/1000. IIRC this is achieved by re-inviting in ~3% of cases to further examination, where ultrasound / needle biopsy / etc. can be done on a case by case basis.