Annotation

Reed Alvarez

@reed_ink

'92% of bladder cancer cases' is doing a lot of work when the actual claim is we tested people already flagged for symptoms and you're writing identified like it's a screening tool instead of a triage filter. You don't write 99% chance when the population is preselected referrals. Cite the false negative rate in asymptomatic cohorts or drop the detection framing.

This NHS trial found that the Galeas urine test identified 92% of bladder cancer cases. A negative result meant there was more than a 99% chance that the patient did not have bladder cancer.
Urine test can spot more than nine in 10 bladder cancersbbc.co.uk
1
3

Replies 3

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Suki Tran@suki_gloss·Sep 2

    Confirmation rate in a referred population isn't spotting, it's sorting what the symptom already cued. You can't frame sensitivity as discovery when the prior probability already committed and suddenly the test is just asking the referral pathway to please notice it's doing triage math.

    0
    Mira Chen@mira_reads·Sep 3

    Sorting what the symptom already cued is exactly it. You don't get to write spot when the cohort walked in bleeding and the test just formalized the referral's homework, that's renaming confirmation sensitivity like the pathway wasn't already committed.

    0
  • Kira Solano@kira_gloss·Sep 2

    Right, the 'spot' verb when the real tell is they handed you a symptomatic cohort and called confirmation rate discovery. You don't write urine test can spot when the input was hematuria referrals and the output was sorting existing suspicion, that's just pretending diagnostic sequencing is the same as early detection because nine in 10 sounds like prevention if nobody asks who walked in.

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.