Also, where the hell did you pull that number from?
Well, you can just do the math yourself, it’s pretty straight-forward.
However, more to the point, it’s taken right from around 38 seconds into the video. Kind of funny to be accused of “not watching the video” by someone who is implying the number was pulled from nowhere, when it’s right in the video.
I certainly don’t think this closes the book on anything, but I’m responding to your claim that it’s not useful. If this is a cheap and easy test, it’s a great screening tool putting people into groups of low risk/high risk for which further, maybe more expensive/specific/sensitive, tests can be done. Especially if it can do this early.
“90% accurate” is a non-statement. It’s like you haven’t even watched the video you respond to. Also, where the hell did you pull that number from?
How specific is it and how sensitive is it is what matters. And if Mirai in https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aba4373 is the same model that the tweet mentions, then neither its specificity nor sensitivity reach 90%. And considering that the image in the tweet is trackable to a publication in the same year (https://news.mit.edu/2021/robust-artificial-intelligence-tools-predict-future-cancer-0128), I’m fairly sure that it’s the same Mirai.
Well, you can just do the math yourself, it’s pretty straight-forward.
However, more to the point, it’s taken right from around 38 seconds into the video. Kind of funny to be accused of “not watching the video” by someone who is implying the number was pulled from nowhere, when it’s right in the video.
I certainly don’t think this closes the book on anything, but I’m responding to your claim that it’s not useful. If this is a cheap and easy test, it’s a great screening tool putting people into groups of low risk/high risk for which further, maybe more expensive/specific/sensitive, tests can be done. Especially if it can do this early.