3 ms·
> then reasonable step is to not follow-up in that case. Then a more reasonable step is not to get the scan. Why do the scan if you don’t follow up. This is w
by prepend 3y ago
> then reasonable step is to not follow-up in that case.
Then a more reasonable step is not to get the scan. Why do the scan if you don’t follow up.
This is why not all screenings are recommended. People think that insurance won’t pay for scans because insurance is a jerk. They don’t pay because the scans aren’t medically effective at protecting populations.
- coryrc 3y agoBecause you can check it on the next scan and see if things are growing.
- drcode 3y agoFollow up procedures should be adjusted based on whether the original test was preventative or not, titrating the amount of risk and cost appropriately The fact that we treat diagnostic results the same regardless of priors just means our medical system is still stuck in the stone age Saying the screenings aren't recommended is just saying "we're too dumb to use the results of this screening the correct way, so you shouldn't get the screening" We can only hope that the new developments in AI will mean that modern statistical procedures will finally be applied to medicine as a side effect (though I wouldn't hold my breath)
- tptacek 3y agoThe premise of the article is that all of these tests were "preventative".
- prepend 3y ago> we're too dumb to use the results of this screening the correct way, so you shouldn't get the screening I agree with this. One day we might be smart enough. But they say is not today. It’s ok to be dumb. It’s also dumb to spend thousands of dollars on these diagnostic scans that we’re too dumb to use. We can plan around our stupidity. We can also research new ways to use these data and, hopefully, one day be less dumb.