Remix.run Logo
kilbuz 6 hours ago

false positives are a real problem

adastra22 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Only if you let them. The false positive thing is a nonissue that only arises from assuming you would respond to information a certain way.

6 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
jibal 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That makes no sense at all, unless you're saying that people should respond to all such information by ignoring it.

adastra22 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You could repeat the test, perhaps on a more frequent interval to keep an eye on it. You could follow up with a more specific test, or do confirming blood work. In the meantime you can adjust your diet as a precaution, or get motivated to get in shape just in case.

There's plenty of room between "go under the knife" and "ignore altogether."

Sankozi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is a lot of space between ignoring and doing invasive dangerous operation after some blot was spotted on some imaging diagnosis.

jibal an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

P.S. The responses ignore what I actually responded to, which was a claim that "The false positive thing is a nonissue" -- where the "thing" is 99% false positives. The only way to respond to information such that "the false positive thing" becomes "a nonissue" is to never respond to it at all. The responses to my comment all address some strawman.

reverius42 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In which case, why bother getting the information in the first place?

simianwords 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

yeah? give adequate accurate information to people and let them decide what to do with the information.

if someone told you, you had a .01% chance of getting a disease for example, aren't you better off with that information? even if it is noisy?

Forgeties79 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't really get what this means. A false positive causes issues inherently - you don't know if it's right or wrong. It's noise which is bad for care, and it's anxiety-inducing for patients which is also bad. It produces worse outcomes for everyone. There isn't a "choice" or assumption here, you respond to a positive as if it's accurate until you know it isn't. This is a known issue. Hell Scrubs did an episode about the negative impact of full, generalized body scans on a patient's wellbeing decades ago.

adastra22 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The medical industry should NOT be paternalistic towards patients. People have a right to decide for themselves and be treated as adults capable of informed consent. Thankfully that model is starting to change, although there is much inertia.

Any test that is approved for use would have a better-than-random outcome distribution. Preconditioned on that, a test result is still useful no matter how uncertain. It is never the case that more information leaves you in a worse position.

I have personal experience here:

Every year I have elected to have ultrasounds done of my major internal organs. In the past two visits, the technicians spotted multiple developing growths in my liver and now kidneys. These are very likely to be benign cysts, but one piece of blood work that could be a marker for cancer is inconclusive. The odds are still high that this is totally benign and will either clear up on its own, or at least stop growing and cause no further issue. Still:

1. I'm getting my blood work done now far more frequently (twice per year instead of every other year), with specialized/not typically ordered screening tests;

2. I am redoing the ultrasound every year to track progress; and

3. I am actually taking advice about losing weight and exercise far more seriously than I otherwise would, as these issues often resolve with weight loss.

I am actually healthier now than I was two years ago, and feel better about my physical and mental well-being. All while staying on top of what could have be a life threatening issue if left untreated and ignored.

I look forward to the day when I can go get a monthly MRI-like scan. That would be wonderful.

Forgeties79 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

Well now we’re going down a different path. Telling people to go burn through mountains of cash to get tests they don’t need is not ethical.

simianwords 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I don't really get what this means. A false positive causes issues inherently - you don't know if it's right or wrong. It's noise which is bad for care, and it's anxiety-inducing for patients which is also bad.

No its not. This is extremely paternalistic. Humans know how to understand noise and statistics. You don't get to decide that for me. I want more lives saved with more information.

simianwords 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

??? how is more information worse than less? if you know the extent of false positives -- use it! its better than having no information.

the question should be: does cost of obtaining extra information pay off in lives saved. i would say yeah obviously.