You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Maybe we're not doomed - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: Manfred 02 August 2014 03:22PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (46)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 August 2014 08:57:48PM 1 point [-]

It's not clear that the results of 23andMe where much better than chance:

It is, actually, quite clear. Chance doesn't have much to do with different weightings and different baselines. Your link, e.g., says:

The Venter study notes that, in some cases, companies define the average population disease risk differently. “Navigenics distinguishes population disease risk between men and women (for example, men are more likely to have heart attacks than women), whereas 23andMe primarily takes into account age (for example, incidence of rheumatoid arthritis increases with age),”

Also, have you looked at studies examining how much different doctors agree with each other about same patients? Hint: not much. Here is one such study.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 08 August 2014 11:28:21PM *  2 points [-]

Also, have you looked at studies examining how much different doctors agree with each other about same patients

But they're a powerful entrenched interest, therefore their mistakes are a-ok.

I used to work for a company that made a machine that scanned pap smear slides for cancer, so I saw some of the data you describe.

In this case, the problem wasn't as much in the inter observer rates as the false negative rates. A significant fraction of slides with abnormalities, as detected by exhaustive examination by experts, were missed by the large commercial processing centers.

Ladies, have your pap smears done at clinics associated with med schools. I think their false negative rate was approaching an order of magnitude better than HMO Lab Inc.

Our magic machine, of course, was much better than HMO Lab Inc. But the FDA "protected" women from more accurate pap smear diagnoses by a post data look at one rare diagnostic category with a handful of samples, where the detection rate was poor. Horrible decision theory, and a failure to follow even the flawed hypothesis testing that they purport to use.

But they've got the guns, so fuck us.