[jessriedel]

> For those not in the lab business: a low false positive rate and a high false negative rate are useful for confirmatory testing, not for screening. Such tests are terrible for screening.

Newbie question: wouldn't a test with very few false positives, but frequent false negatives, still be good for screening if it was cheaper/easier than existing screening, so it could be given to more of the population based on a weaker suspicion threshold? Like, in the limit of it being free and having zero false-positive rate, you'd give it to everyone.

(Maybe given your expertise it's obvious to you that the test is sufficiently expensive that this argument doesn't apply?)

[ac29]

Frequent false negatives mean it will miss many people who do have the disease, leading them to believe they are healthy until the disease progresses to a point it may be more difficult to treat.

[killjoywashere]

If you're kicking people with cancer out of the medical system on a screening test, you're going to have a bad day.