4 ms·
I find this sentiment almost offensive. Like it goes against everything I believe to say that less data is better. But the root of it is pretty clear "even basi
by im3w1l 4y ago
I find this sentiment almost offensive. Like it goes against everything I believe to say that less data is better. But the root of it is pretty clear "even basic blood tests can lead to unnecessary interventions or treatments". It's the belief that a test leads to interventions. But it doesn't have to of course. An intervention is a decision, and if an intervention is likely to be unnecessary, then they shouldn't intervene. "But the yadda-yadda-value is elevated", yeah well you said it yourself it's most likely nothing, so do nothing, just note it down for future reference.
- nlh 4y agoAgreed 100%. It's absurd. The results get distilled as "more data leads to worse outcomes" and that's ridiculous -- it should be: "more data leads to bad decisions which lead to worse outcomes". We should ALWAYS strive to have more and better data. What needs to change is how we (and our doctors) respond to that data.
- Bud 4y ago[dead]
- jwestbury 4y agoWhilst I agree in theory -- in practice, humans are prone to misreading data. We have to build our systems to accommodate human flaws, as engineering away human flaws is much, much harder, and potentially impossible.
- im3w1l 4y agoHuman culture is constantly evolving, it's a mistake to assume that the flaws of today must remain so tomorrow. There is also AI to consider.
- trgn 4y agoThat's just saying the same thing as the article. But instead of reconsidering the premise, this is just doubling down on it. > We should ALWAYS strive to have more and better data. If you value data in and of itself, in other words if data is an a priori good, then this is a fetish.
- newaccount74 4y agoIf you ignore elevated values, why test in the first place? Also, often the test itself is somewhat invasive. Sticking various apparatuses into our bodies comes with all kinds of risks, so it better be worthwhile to do it.
- im3w1l 4y agoI'm not a doctor, but... Well the logical thing to do is 1. Ignore mildly elevated values in the absence of symptoms. 2. Take action on very elevated values. 3. Look for trends and anomalies in the data. "This guy has had a value in the low end on every previous check up, but now it's a bit elevated, what's up with that?"
- saulpw 4y agoExtreme values should be treated, and 'borderline' values should be ignored, but then they often aren't. People are scared when it comes to their health. Also a blood test and urine sample aren't invasive and come with ~0 risk.
- hotpathdev 4y agoThe issue is that depending on the situation, and on the patient in question, the intervention will shift from decision, to persuasion to mandatory. For example, if you have a positive test for cancer, they will persuade you to follow it up. They will apply very emotionally manipulative techniques. Another example, if the patient does not have the ability to decide for themselves, the doctor's opinion will hold a very heavy weight and can lead into a legal issue. If you believe that science and medicine in 2023 is offering complete understanding and solutions to all or even many problems, then you will naturally feel like these two examples should be handled that way. However, the daily "revelations" of "new medical research" which contradict past results and understandings should be enough to cause doubt in that high level of confidence.