3 ms·
This is absurd logic. If the next step for a test like is a procedure with a lot of risk, change the next step. We need to be able to work in a world with freq
by mchusma 4y ago
This is absurd logic. If the next step for a test like is a procedure with a lot of risk, change the next step.
We need to be able to work in a world with frequent, imperfect, low cost diagnostic tools. Cancer is almost completely survivable if caught early enough. So working to figure out early detection is effectively the "cure" for cancer we have been looking for.
- ip26 4y agoAs I recall the actual logic was after decades of early & frequent screening, allegedly the data showed a greatly increased rate of mass discovery and treatment, but no improvement in mortality at the population level. This suggested despite a lot of activity, we may not have accomplished anything.
- pas 4y agobut that means that instead of treatment the correct next step after discovery is monitoring of those masses, no? also it's quite possible that (just as with COVID tests) we would benefit from more testing even if that test is not that reliable. (so there's an argument for developing fast non-ionizing radiation imaging machines, eg. a fast stand-in MRI)