121–130 of 161 posts
https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/130178603213683507...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
kind of an important emotional question as some couples have been trying to get pregnant for years And for some just the opposite... like 19 year old me decades ago -- ambiguous test result, and no 24 hour drugstores at the time so led to a sleepless night for both of us until we could get a second test the next day. It was negative. Would have much rather had an unambiguous POS/NEG result.
If it was ambiguous, these digital tests may have told you it was negative even when it would be positive a day or two later. You might have slept better but it wouldn’t have been based on accurate data.
So It's basically like the blood sugar testers diabetics use, except they want you to buy a new reader with every strip. There is now an opportunity for one of the manufacturers of pregnancy tests to make a reusable reader. The add could be like "We know you're going to test more than once, we won't force you to buy a reader every time." or "instead of asking the strangers if they see a line (cut to forum posts of te…
Jamming paper into the machine is more error prone than not using the machine.
This kind of makes sense in a strange way. Inexpensive red LED's have relatively narrow spectral line half width (~20nm) and you can set detection thresholds against measured values. This is much better than "I think I saw something in a dimly lit bathroom". This means that in the readout part (UI) it is hard to get wrong results ("Is it one or two?"). Then again it is a wasteful and overpriced product that can leave…
> it is a wasteful On one hand, what a marvelous thing it is. On the other, what a waste, single use of silicon, battery and LCD that'll go straight to the landfill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this link shows exactly why plain chemical tests are superior, no? The poster's question was about the conflict, not the interpretation of the chemical test. >FRERs can pick up hCG as low as 7. Digitals require >40. Try with a digital in another week! This seems to me like you're replacing an analogue, more precise reading with a binary, easier to read, imprecise reading?
Superior sensitivity != Superior UX. Yeah, sure if you know what you are doing observing chemical reaction can be much better. It's like the difference between consumer tools and industrial tools. Full manual espresso machines are superior from the perspective of a coffee nerd or professional. Nespresso machines with capsules are superior from the perspective of the person who wants the coffee but doesn't fancy learn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds more like imaginary pregnancy test then real one. The real ones dont do faint line-ish. Also, for christ people, 16 years old were administrating these tests for years now, without there being massive social problem of confused woman. They just somehow managed to do them, even if their school results were very bad. So trying to claim they are somehow difficult to interpret is absurd.
Forums are filled with people not sure what the test result is. Just Google for "is this pregnancy test positive" to get a sample.
Taking 5 papers tests is simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is first time I hear about pregnancy test being "intimidating". The only pregnancy test intimidating reference I knew about so far was "omg, shit I am pregnant shit".
I don’t have enough close female friends to hear these worries from, but I’ve seen it as a trope in movies and TV shows many times where the woman tries to interpret the strip, gets it wrong, etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's surprising because the electronics are essentially useless. Most people would expect the electronic version would have some type of advantage, because those electronics cost extra money to produce.
It’s not clear to me that the LEDs are not selected based on their emission frequency/photodiodes don’t have a filter. That could allow a more sensitive measurement than possible with the human eye.
"Pregnancy tests are 99% accurate in the lab, 75% accurate in the wild due to misreads- mistakes which are highly dependent on education and socioeconomic status. No, it is not stupid or wasteful to use a hardware interface to help women with this." https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/130178603213683507...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, although I doubt it. It would mean that they put in extra research to, for example, plot an ROC curve and see what the optimal threshold for the test would be. Even if that was the case, you can still frame the question in terms of cost/benefits. The electronic test is, let's say, 10 times more expensive than a basic one. Is it more reliable than taking 10 basic tests (maybe at different times) and averaging t…
Averaging is thr worst. No laymen would know what 80% pregnant means. Better use majority vote.