this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
12 points (100.0% liked)

Public Health

371 readers
1 users here now

For issues concerning:


๐Ÿฉบ This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.



Related Communities

See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)


Rules

Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.

Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content

Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] TacoNot@mander.xyz 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

SOLVD Health said in its application that AvertD had demonstrated a sensitivity of about 82% and a specificity of about 79%.

Those numbers suggest that roughly 1 in 5 results would be false negatives and roughly 1 in 5 would be false positives.

That doesn't seem very good

[โ€“] jadero@mander.xyz 1 points 6 months ago

Total error rate is about 2/5? That's barely better than a coin flip.

"Oh yes, I just got tested for my potential to become an opioid addict. Give me a second to flip a coin: heads I read the report, tails I toss it in the recycle bin."