4 ms·
> except for colorectal screenings where the difference was about 4 months of difference That sounds, uh, significant. So to clarify, does that mean people gai
by francisofascii 3y ago
> except for colorectal screenings where the difference was about 4 months of difference
That sounds, uh, significant. So to clarify, does that mean people gain 4 months on average by getting this screening? Those who get the cancer gain years, and those that don't gain 0, so the average is 4 months?
- slingnow 3y agoThink of what you're saying. If it was so bimodal that the screened people "gained years" while the ones who didn't "gained 0", then how could the average possibly be 4 months? If we take your theory at face value, on average the screened people would have an 8 month increase.
- francisofascii 3y agoA very simplistic hypothetical scenario could be, people who get colon cancer die an average of 6-7 years earlier than they would have. And if 5% of the population get colon cancer, then the average gain would be 4 months with screening.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HWR_14 3y agoThat is how I read it. It also makes me wonder that if some cancers are rare enough to average to 0 months (rounded down) that could still work out to a 1/500 chance of living to 80 vs 40. Long odds it matters, but big difference if it does.
- somenameforme 3y agoThey were testing for some of the most frequent cancers (breast, colorectal, lung cancer (in smokers), prostate), and measuring differences in outcomes down to the day.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]