Submitted by raeflows t3_z3nal3 in askscience
Alt-One-More t1_ixn4qzn wrote
What you're looking for is in the article linked:
"Approximately 1.6% of individuals in the United States will develop pancreatic cancer during their lifetime.1 With this relatively low prevalence, even an ideal screening test with 99% sensitivity and 99% specificity would yield 1000 false-positive results if applied to 100 000 patients. These false-positive results would require subsequent diagnostic evaluation and accrue additional complications, costs, and patient distress that would cause the risks of screening to outweigh any potential benefit."
_Oman t1_ixn6ufq wrote
The simple version: If the screening were perfect, it would help immensely. When screening isn't perfect and the occurrence rate is is low, screenings can create worse overall outcomes for the general population.
PolarSquirrelBear t1_ixnh2ty wrote
It’s why they won’t test for herpes unless you’re symptomatic. There are so many false-positives you would completely change your life around it, with a possibility that you don’t actually have it.
But with the prevalence of it, you can pretty much just assume you have it anyways.
whatkindofred t1_ixpm12e wrote
If almost everyone has it then where do all the false positives come from?
[deleted] t1_ixnwmu5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixpyyyp wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments