Follow

The usual disclaimer: this is promising, but don't count on great results.

If it works as advertised—*if*—it could be what promised and so spectacularly failed to deliver. is using well-understood technology and (I think) large enough samples to make the claims for the test believable, at least. And the (again, I think) doesn't have the kind of incestuous relationships with financially interested parties that helped et al. get away with such fraud for so long. So I'm inclined to trust their reporting.

With that said, the usual 's disclaimer applies: is hard. So, for that matter, does the 's and the 's, because there are multiple *kinds* of multiple testing going on here. The more you test, the more you will screw up.

I almost appended "it's like a law of nature" to that last sentence above ... but no, it *is* a law of nature. Unreasonable effectiveness of something something.

screening is important, and steady improvements in the field have already saved untold numbers of lives. I expect this will continue to be the case. So take this with cautious optimism. Pushing back the boundaries a little bit at a time, each small step representing another decade or year or month of life—it's what we do, every day. I want to believe.

theguardian.com/science/2023/j

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.