The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
I actually think you want the inverse I think you never want false negatives in other words you want a hundred percent specificity you never want it to be yeah yeah yeah sorry I misspoke you know what do you want how negative predictive value to be a hundred percent you never want someone who has cancer to be told they don't have cancer
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
what's kind of cool in the liquid biopsy companies I'm looking at and I'm pure exposing my lack of statistical knowledge is that because the test is effectively a computer analysis of data you can manually trade-off between sensitivity and specificity
we have to have a hundred percent specificity we can't tell anyone who has the disease that they don't have it and that's the way it should be that is how it should be
if liquid biopsies are trivially inexpensive which is the goal say this glimpse test you know I mean forget all the health economics of it if just the cost of doing it might be five or $10 or $20 or something if the sensitivity and specificity are both high enough then of course you would rather use them as a universal screen and then follow up with much more expensive interventions