2 ms·
You are assuming that those false positive rates are fixed, but they aren't. The "positive" criteria are done by an analysis exactly as sophisticated as a huma
by fallingknife 2y ago
You are assuming that those false positive rates are fixed, but they aren't. The "positive" criteria are done by an analysis exactly as sophisticated as a human scanning a list of numbers. The process is a joke and it needs to be improved by more data and better analysis, not this nonsensical "don't test people because they might be positive" argument.
- mlyle 2y agoNo, I'm assuming there's a tradeoff between sensitivity (spotting cancers) and specificity (having your positive results actually be cancer). ANOVA to pick variables and then reasonably selecting thresholds is a fine process that avoids overfit. The big problem is, biology is messy and measuring lots of people to find correct thresholds is really expensive and time consuming. It's not really a technological problem, though technology has helped a little.