[francisofascii]

> except for colorectal screenings where the difference was about 4 months of difference

That sounds, uh, significant. So to clarify, does that mean people gain 4 months on average by getting this screening? Those who get the cancer gain years, and those that don't gain 0, so the average is 4 months?

[HWR_14]

That is how I read it.

It also makes me wonder that if some cancers are rare enough to average to 0 months (rounded down) that could still work out to a 1/500 chance of living to 80 vs 40. Long odds it matters, but big difference if it does.

[somenameforme]

They were testing for some of the most frequent cancers (breast, colorectal, lung cancer (in smokers), prostate), and measuring differences in outcomes down to the day.

[slingnow]

Think of what you're saying. If it was so bimodal that the screened people "gained years" while the ones who didn't "gained 0", then how could the average possibly be 4 months?

If we take your theory at face value, on average the screened people would have an 8 month increase.

[francisofascii]

A very simplistic hypothetical scenario could be, people who get colon cancer die an average of 6-7 years earlier than they would have. And if 5% of the population get colon cancer, then the average gain would be 4 months with screening.