3 ms·
Forgive me for being mathematical in order to make my point: My hypothesis is that having more information cannot result in a worse average outcome, given a ra
by ronaldx 13y ago
Forgive me for being mathematical in order to make my point:
My hypothesis is that having more information cannot result in a worse average outcome, given a rational response to the information (correctly accounting for relative risk). As a doctor, I do not have to recommend follow up scans if the cost is greater than the benefit, but I should still seek to use the information from those once they've been done.
I suggest that the above holds true even if there is some known chance that the information is junk.
To put it more simply, early intervention is always better.
- DanBC 13y ago> My hypothesis is that having more information cannot result in a worse average outcome, given a rational response to the information Rational response to shadows on the lung in a CT scan is more scanning and more testing. The results of the further tests carry a risk. The benefits are zero for anyone without a disease, and low for anyone with a disease. That's a worse than average outcome for almost everyone taking those extra un-needed tests. > No, early intervention is not always better. There are many men who've had traumatic treatment for prostate cancer because of the results of early intervention style treatments. Many of those men would have died with, not of, prostate cancer. Thus, their lives have suffered because of a rational response to an early intervention.