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.
let's say 90% so now what does it mean to have 90% specificity so that means you take a hundred women who we absolutely know do not have breast cancer and you scan them 90 of them will correctly identify as not having breast cancer 10 of them will incorrectly identify as having breast cancer so 10 will be false positives 90 will be true negatives
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.
a mammogram had a sensitivity of about eighty call it eighty four eighty five percent and a specificity of about ninety ninety-one percent
here's why mography has a sensitivity of about 90% And A specificity of about 85%