2 ms·
> What specific advances have been made in better detection and/or screening? Do we use better technology for this? The technology[1] and methodology used in d
by bryans 4y ago
> What specific advances have been made in better detection and/or screening? Do we use better technology for this?
The technology[1] and methodology used in detection has advanced significantly and repeatedly.
> If there was some sudden advancement then I'd assume we'd see a sudden jump in the graph. Rather, we see an incredibly smooth and steady increase.
You're ignoring the time it takes for technology to be adopted and implemented. No business, medical or otherwise, blindly purchases every piece of technology the moment it's made available on the market. In medicine, that process can actually be so slow that by the time a specific product reaches mass adoption, the current technology or methodology or medical understanding has already progressed, starting a new cycle of adoption. And that's all still ignoring the financial costs, which are often a barrier for smaller practices.
> Furthermore, the graph is split between male and female and there's very few, if any, little increases that are synchronized across these categories. If technology was a factor I'd assume we'd see increases in both
You're ignoring many factors here, most notably that women visit the doctor more often[2], spend more time per visit and more willingly express concerns[3], and increasingly so as care for women has become more accessible and less stigmatized[4]. Also, the graph is actually extremely synchronized between men and women, so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5624041/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5624041/
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15130263/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15130263/
[3] https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2019/09/04/cleveland-clinic-survey-men-will-do-almost-anything-to-avoid-going-to-the-doctor/ https://newsroom.clevelandclinic.org/2019/09/04/cleveland-cl...
[4] https://swhr.org/about/history/timeline/ https://swhr.org/about/history/timeline/
- culi 4y ago> The technology[1] and methodology used in detection has advanced significantly and repeatedly. Thanks for the link! Your source mentions that "total body photography and dermoscopy have been the first to attain significant diffusion into clinical practice" but makes no other reference to actual adoption except to point out that "the accessibility of the skin to simple visual inspection and the relative ease of skin biopsy have retarded the adoption of high-tech diagnostic aids" which seems to point out that technological adoption has not actually made a huge difference? I'm seeing a huge increase in research but no evidence of actual adoption. Anyone who's worked in this industry knows how large the gap between research and adoption can be It's a good source, but not completely relevant since it brings no reference to any data on actual adoption of the technologies its discussing. It's also from 2008... > You're ignoring the time it takes for technology to be adopted and implemented. Yes, good point, thanks. > You're ignoring many factors here... I think you misunderstood my point. I was specifically not talking about the OVERALL trend, but rather the direction of the little bumps along the way. If we had a sudden technological advancement one year (whether large or small) we'd expect to see a positive bump for both male and female categories. Instead most of the bumps actually point the opposite way of each other