For reference, this means that in a population where 10 in 1,000 people had cancer, you'd correctly diagnose 4 and have 208 false positives for a positive predictive value (how likely a +ve test is to be right) of 4/212 or 1.9% That's...not brillianthttps://twitter.com/whereisdaz/status/1191104549391437824 …
-
Show this thread
-
For further reference, using the 2015 rate of breast cancer in women aged 25-49 in Australia, which is 20 in 10,000, you'd see 8 true positives for every 2,000 false positives, or a PPV of ~0.4%
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likesShow this thread -
This is the paradox of screening - if the test isn't incredibly precise, and the condition is quite rare (as breast cancer is before age 50), then it can often do more harm than good!
2 replies 3 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
I learnt this on our routine mammogram question...for a non-medical person it still is the most interesting debate ive learnt on http://metafact.io https://metafact.io/factchecks/193-do-routine-mammograms-save-lives …
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
It's one of the most counterintuitive things in medicine I think
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.