3 ms·
> explained that if breast cancer caused 3% of all female deaths and screenings reduced these deaths by 35%, that’s a good result on its own. But screenings may
by aydyn 3y ago
> explained that if breast cancer caused 3% of all female deaths and screenings reduced these deaths by 35%, that’s a good result on its own. But screenings may change mortality overall by only about 1%
This statement makes it clear what's going on. In ML terms: class imbalance. 99.9% of people won't ever get colon cancer, and therefore won't ever benefit from a colonoscopy. It won't make any statistical difference in overall population survival. But for the 0.1%? It will save their lives.
- vc8f6vVV 3y ago> 99.9% of people won't ever get colon cancer, and therefore won't ever benefit from a colonoscopy. But they may have complications from a colonoscopy, that's the idea. No test is completely harmless, even a blood work. You save some lives but may loose others, that's the point of the paper. And of course you waste resources that can be used to find a cure.
- hedora 3y agoYes, and if you perform dozens of tests per year on the general population, and take action based on the results, then the probabilities add up pretty rapidly.
- ilya_m 3y agoI understand the comment's thesis, but I'd like to see more accurate numbers used where real health outcomes are concerned. The lifetime risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer is ~4%. (With the odds trending higher for the younger generation.) The risk of _death_ from this cancer is ~1%.