| Darmyian founders wrote the following in another post[1]: > Roughly 97% sensitivity (3% false negative) and 85% specificity (15% false positive) So with this information, the calcuation of Bayesian probability is as follows: (0.97*0.016)/(0.97*0.016+0.15*0.984) = 0.095
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. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15083617
|