4 ms·

From what I've read, full body scans are awful for this--your body forms and kills tumors all the time. The false positive rate is ridiculous.

owenpalmer 4mo ago
I'm not so worried about the data being useful, I'm worried about the machine actually working. I mean, with that much data, you may be able to understand under what timeframe a tumor is actually of concern. What's so bad about having some false positives?
- genocidicbunny 4mo ago
  > What's so bad about having some false positives? Having invasive surgery. Undergoing chemotherapy. The former is bad, the latter is basically a 'lets hope it kills the cancer before it kills you' situation. It's arguable which one is worse, but I'd rather not have to ever partake in either of them again.
  - owenpalmer 4mo ago
    Why would you jump from an ultrasound to chemotherapy? It's not meant to be a definitive diagnosis, it's just an early screening process...
    - genocidicbunny 4mo ago
      Because that was exactly the jump for me. Ultrasound led to expedited surgery that happened within 2 weeks of the ultrasound. The results of the surgery led to chemotherapy. It wasn't long between the ultrasound and BEP being hooked up.
askmike 4mo ago
The more we measure, the better we get at separating the false positive cases from the serious ones. Especially in a world where AI plays a bigger role in the development of the medial sciences. Going forward into the future and not measuring more accurately because we are worried about false positives in our current limited understanding is a very conservative take.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- bonsai_spool 4mo ago
  > The more we measure, the better we get at separating the false positive cases from the serious ones. On what basis do you say this? There is an extensive literature that refutes this. Scanners have been getting much better since the first CT scans and many more people are getting them.
gpm 4mo ago
False positives aren't a consequence of having the data, they're a consequence of misusing the data to issue diagnoses with insufficient evidence. "Just" don't set your thresholds for diagnosis so that you do that.
kanzure 4mo ago
> your body forms and kills tumors all the time. The false positive rate is ridiculous. Um, that's still a tumor.
- gpm 4mo ago
  Yeah but it's not cancer.

owenpalmer 4mo ago

I'm not so worried about the data being useful, I'm worried about the machine actually working. I mean, with that much data, you may be able to understand under what timeframe a tumor is actually of concern. What's so bad about having some false positives?

genocidicbunny 4mo ago
> What's so bad about having some false positives? Having invasive surgery. Undergoing chemotherapy. The former is bad, the latter is basically a 'lets hope it kills the cancer before it kills you' situation. It's arguable which one is worse, but I'd rather not have to ever partake in either of them again.
- owenpalmer 4mo ago
  Why would you jump from an ultrasound to chemotherapy? It's not meant to be a definitive diagnosis, it's just an early screening process...
  - genocidicbunny 4mo ago
    Because that was exactly the jump for me. Ultrasound led to expedited surgery that happened within 2 weeks of the ultrasound. The results of the surgery led to chemotherapy. It wasn't long between the ultrasound and BEP being hooked up.

askmike 4mo ago

The more we measure, the better we get at separating the false positive cases from the serious ones. Especially in a world where AI plays a bigger role in the development of the medial sciences. Going forward into the future and not measuring more accurately because we are worried about false positives in our current limited understanding is a very conservative take.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
bonsai_spool 4mo ago
> The more we measure, the better we get at separating the false positive cases from the serious ones. On what basis do you say this? There is an extensive literature that refutes this. Scanners have been getting much better since the first CT scans and many more people are getting them.

gpm 4mo ago

False positives aren't a consequence of having the data, they're a consequence of misusing the data to issue diagnoses with insufficient evidence. "Just" don't set your thresholds for diagnosis so that you do that.

kanzure 4mo ago

> your body forms and kills tumors all the time. The false positive rate is ridiculous. Um, that's still a tumor.

gpm 4mo ago
Yeah but it's not cancer.