News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Half of women will get a false positive 3D mammogram, study finds. Parent comment

Re:Half of women will get a false positive 3D mammogram, stu... by cortesoft on Friday March 25, 2022 @02:35PM (#30805621)
That is how tests are described in scientific circles, but not with the general public. An overall `accuracy` number is usually given.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Half of women will get a false positive 3D mammogram, stu... by amelius on Friday March 25, 2022 @07:08PM (#30807862)
Perhaps multiply sensitivity by specificity then, to get a single number that the public can use?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Half of women will get a false positive 3D mammogram, stu... by thaumasiotes on Friday March 25, 2022 @08:07PM (#30808149)
That's not a number the public can use. What would it be supposed to mean?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Half of women will get a false positive 3D mammogram, stu... by amelius on Friday March 25, 2022 @10:23PM (#30808754)
A fuzzy AND of sensitivity and specificity. Another option is to take the minimum (part of the Zadeh operators).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Half of women will get a false positive 3D mammogram, stu... by cortesoft on Saturday March 26, 2022 @12:43AM (#30809290)
The point isn’t that you can’t create a single number that can represent the effectiveness, just that you can’t get a single number that the public will understand. People have enough trouble with simple percentages.
[ Parent | on HN ]