Re:Half of women will get a false positive 3D mammogram, stu...
by Dylan16807 on Sunday March 27, 2022 @01:45PM
(#30822268)
> The fact there is one real positive necessarily implies they are assuming the false negative rate is exactly 0, given that the disease prevalence is in 0.01 percent of the population.
Or that they rounded .99 people to 1 person.
And given that they did round the false positives, I don't see why that's a strange idea.
"Let's say there is a terrible disease that 0.01% (1 in 10,000) of the population is infected with, and we develop a test that is 99% accurate. You go to the doctor and get a test. Oh no, it's positive. What are the chances that it's a false positive?
Intuition would tell you 1% since the test is 99% accurate. Intuition, as it often is, is wrong. Take a sample size of 'x', we'll use 10,000. How many people will be infected? 1. How many false positives will there be? 1% * 10,000 = 100"
Then they conclude by saying:
The fact there is one real positive necessarily implies they are assuming the false negative rate is exactly 0, given that the disease prevalence is in 0.01 percent of the population.