The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
in a low prevalence situation you still have high negative predictive value because the prevalence is so low virtually nobody has this condition so even though you drop your sensitivity it's still okay from a negative predictive value standpoint and by the way sometimes that's all you need to know
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.
now because so many people are walking around with this condition your specificity starts to kick in and your positive predictive value goes up
well now look what happens my negative predictive value for all intents and purposes is still exceptional yes it has come down slightly from basically a hundred percent to ninety nine point six percent but more importantly my positive predictive value has gone way up from effectively zero to about ninety eight percent
but from a positive predictive value standpoint it still remains abysmal