[eva1984]

> That said, the obvious concern would be the extreme cost of a false negative

Probably not. People won't go to doctor unless they sense something wrong with their body. So it is actually filling the void here.

On the other hand, false positives will cause a bigger problem, because swarm of people will get triggered by the fear of cancer, and hospital might not handle the sudden surge of traffic for treatment.

[the_watcher]

I think I agree with you from a policy perspective. However, the cost of a false negative has major PR implications (just wait for the first "I tried this algorithm and it misdiagnosed what turned out to be cancer") story. While I totally agree that those stories would be entirely unfair when looking at rates, that's not how it would play out in media response (and unfortunately, regulatory response).