Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: bernard cleyet <bernard@cleyet.org>*Date*: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:15:33 -0700

Is the argument that numerous false +’s indicate few false -’s?

The reason being the test is overly sensitive. [Better than the reverse, no?]

bc partly baked?

p.s. reminded don’t use the PSA test if over 70. False +’s are rather harmful and are often. 75% ouch!

https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/psa-fact-sheet

On 2018/Oct/24, at 14:30, John Denker via Phys-l <phys-l@mail.phys-l.org> wrote:

It was nice to see that a little training in probability theory could come

in handy.

Agreed.

**References**:**[Phys-L] Bayes" Theorem and Medical Tests***From:*"Don" <dgpolvani@gmail.com>

**Re: [Phys-L] probability ... was: Bayes Theorem and Medical Tests***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-L] probability ... was: Bayes Theorem and Medical Tests** - Next by Date:
**[Phys-L] Rather certainly due to AGCC** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-L] probability ... was: Bayes Theorem and Medical Tests** - Next by thread:
**[Phys-L] Rather certainly due to AGCC** - Index(es):