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


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.


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Kaiser Fung. Business analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker.
Visit my website. Follow my Twitter. See my articles at Daily Beast, 538, HBR, Wired.

See my Youtube and Flickr.
Numbers Rule Your World:
Amazon - Barnes&Noble

Amazon - Barnes&Noble


  • only in Big Data

Next Events

Jan: 10 NYPL Data Science Careers Talk, New York, NY

Past Events

Aug: 15 NYPL Analytics Resume Review Workshop, New York, NY

Apr: 2 Data Visualization Seminar, Pasadena, CA

Mar: 30 ASA DataFest, New York, NY

See more here


R Fundamentals, Principal Analytics Prep

Numbersense: Statistical Reasoning in Practice, Principal Analytics Prep

Applied Analytics Frameworks & Methods, Columbia

The Art of Data Visualization, NYU

Signed copies at McNally-Jackson, NYC

Excerpts: Numbersense Ch. 1, 7, 8. NRYW

Junk Charts Blog

Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee