« 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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEW BOOTCAMP



Link to Principal Analytics Prep

See our curriculum, instructors. Apply.
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.

See my Youtube and Flickr.

Next Events

Mar: 30 ASA DataFest, New York, NY

Apr: 2 Data Visualization Seminar, Pasadena, CA

Past Events

Mar: 20 NYPL Public Lecture on Data Revolution, New York, NY
Nov: 8 Tufts TGI Careers & Networking Night panel, Somerville, MA

See more here

Courses

Numbersense: Statistical Reasoning in Practice, Principal Analytics Prep

Applied Analytics Frameworks & Methods, Columbia

The Art of Data Visualization, NYU

Junk Charts Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

Search3

  • only in Big Data

Community