|
|
|
|
|
by RoboTeddy
3222 days ago
|
|
> a randomly screened individual with a positive test will only actually have a 12.8% chance of getting Alzheimers Darmiyan folks, is this correct? If so, what are the implications for the utility of the test? (No matter the answer it feels like this research is important -- thank you!) |
|
> Roughly 97% sensitivity (3% false negative) and 85% specificity (15% false positive)
So with this information, the calcuation of Bayesian probability is as follows:
So a 9.5% chance of actually getting Alzheimers within the following 15 years if Darmiyan's test is positive. I don't have much formal statistical training, so I'm all ears if I'm making a mistake in the calculation here.They also write the following:
> False positive here is not real false positive, as the software is detecting abnormality in people who are still cognitively normal.
Which is a terrible excuse - abnormality is only clinically relevant if it leads to disease. By this logic I can create the world's greatest test for cancer simply by saying that every given individual has cancer (100% sensitivity), and if they don't have it yet, they do carry the genetic abnormalities that will lead to cancer eventually - no "real false positives", right? Simply saying that "sooner or later, our test will prove correct" is not good enough here.
Founders of Darmyian: I commend your efforts in this space as a tool for research, and can potentially be very valuable for clinical trials. However, offering it to consumers as a screening tool when there are no proven preventative measures is - in my opinion - completely unethical and comes across as an attempt at trying to profit off fear mongering.