« Reading media reports of medical findings | Main | Update: seminar at Columbia »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chris P

Reading the journal article, you find they have 64% specificity with the two-measure biomarker data on their study population (aged 55-90 with most only having 2 year follow-up). I am not sure that is enough for people to trust the test, but it would be nice if the reporting on the article reflected this.

Kaiser

Chris: thanks for looking up the number. It is as expected. If the false positive rate is extremely low, the false negative rate usually is not very high because there is a trade-off.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Marketing and advertising analytics expert. Author and Speaker. Currently at Vimeo and NYU. See my full bio.

Spring 2015 Courses (New York)

Jan 26: Business Analytics & Data Visualization (14 weeks) Info

Feb 23: Statistics for Management (10 weeks) Register

Mar 28: Careers in Business Analytics & Data Science (one-day seminar) Register

Apr 7: The Art of Data Visualization Workshop (6 weeks) Register

Junk Charts Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

Search3

  • only in Big Data

Community