Science Memes

11021 readers

3444 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1469

Breast Cancer (mander.xyz)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

221 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

“90% accurate” is a non-statement. It’s like you haven’t even watched the video you respond to. Also, where the hell did you pull that number from?

How specific is it and how sensitive is it is what matters. And if Mirai in https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aba4373 is the same model that the tweet mentions, then neither its specificity nor sensitivity reach 90%. And considering that the image in the tweet is trackable to a publication in the same year (https://news.mit.edu/2021/robust-artificial-intelligence-tools-predict-future-cancer-0128), I’m fairly sure that it’s the same Mirai.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Also, where the hell did you pull that number from?

Well, you can just do the math yourself, it's pretty straight-forward.

However, more to the point, it's taken right from around 38 seconds into the video. Kind of funny to be accused of "not watching the video" by someone who is implying the number was pulled from nowhere, when it's right in the video.

I certainly don't think this closes the book on anything, but I'm responding to your claim that it's not useful. If this is a cheap and easy test, it's a great screening tool putting people into groups of low risk/high risk for which further, maybe more expensive/specific/sensitive, tests can be done. Especially if it can do this early.