@XVG_MD@_basilp@t6aguirre Yeah, it was a little lol. But I'm sure he just made an honest mistake. There's no way he doesn't understand the difference between time series and one time imaging.
@_basilp@t6aguirre Yeah, this is specifically NOT time series, but rather one time full body scans.
Perhaps a little slip up? I'm sure you're well aware of the difference.
@_basilp@t6aguirre Can you point me to when any doctor has "seen the story" of multiple time series full-body scans leading to worse outcomes?
I'm sure that's were you have formed your rational opinion, so I'd like to read about it. I've searched but haven't found anything, hoping you can help.
@epunkonl@irl_danB I agree with that statement, and would add "Collecting less data has harmed many people in the past and should not be accepted absent rigorous evidence that it leads to better outcomes."
I'm not aware of any evidence that collecting time series imaging is harmful
@dfadsdaf94761@horizontalescal@irl_danB Ok. So you're against biopsies on the basis of radiological imaging. That's at least a clear answer.
What's the basis for that? Are you aware of any medical institutes that agree?
@vladimirprus@JeffLadish "Big data engineer". Literally doesn't understand Bayes... I bet you're even good at your job.
It's incredible that the world keeps functioning.
@dfadsdaf94761@horizontalescal@irl_danB Someone with high cholesterol has a very high chance of not getting any complications from that his entire life. People stress out all their life about high cholesterol.
I assume you're not saying we should cut cholesterol testing or stop medicating it.
Do you see the fallacy?
@epunkonl@irl_danB Yes, if doctors are using the information in a harmful way, then that information is harmful.
Data is intrinsically not affecting health. If data leads to worse outcomes, just invert the action and outcomes will inverse as well.
I just accepted that doctors are bad at math
it is embarrassing that the field responsible for making life or death decisions just collectively agreed on the obviously false, grade-school disprovable statement that more information can be bad to a robust decision making process
@dfadsdaf94761@horizontalescal@irl_danB You can say that about any test.
We shouldn't check breast or prostate.
We shouldn't check cholesterol.
We shouldn't check plaque.
What fundamentally decides whether a test should be taken or not in your mind?
@dfadsdaf94761@horizontalescal@irl_danB This is a fundamentally flawed understanding of Bayes.
People should get tested.
People should not necessarily act on all positives.
@epunkonl@irl_danB Assuming the imaging works:
There will be increased survival for people with more info compared to people with less, as long as that info is used in any positive way.
If doctors can't use added info in a non negative way, we need to retrain them or change practices.
@carlosdponx@radfugee@slatestarcodex Exactly. When expanding on why this technology would be "utterly useless", the explanation is that early detection is not a proven hypothesis in all cancers?
Seems like a fallacy, @radfugee?
@Scintigraphiste@4evereesti No known use for high definition ultrasound scans? Lol... I get that you're sceptical of Midjourney achieving that, but if you think there's no known use case you're at best ignorant about radiology.
@niftydaimoku@FlowbyGoogle As the EU grows ever stronger and more powerful, the nations of Europe fall farther and farther behind.
Good luck Spaniard! ๐ช๐ธ