[RandomLensman]

If you screen a lot of people for a lot of things, you will find a lot of things, but not all the findings will mean something or require action. The initial ramp up of huge "unwarranted" screenings will create a lot of pain until we/AI figures out when something warrants attention.

[dale_glass]

Can't we intelligently limit that to things with essentially no risk of false positive?

[vidarh]

The problem with that is that even "essentially no risk of false positives" starts adding up when you do millions of tests every year.

If those tests are done on demographics where the chance of a true positive is also very low and the difference in risk profile between catching it during such screening vs. waiting until the patient discovers it is not very significant, it can take a very low rate of complications before it becomes a problem.

But, yes, we do limit that, and that is a major reason there are very few mass screening programs.

[RandomLensman]

Then the selection of tests might get very small and we simply don't even know what all might be relevant if doing billions and billions of tests on a lot things - a lot of possible weird things to trip us up.