11–20 of 31 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the text before making this comment? > They found that the new test had 96% sensitivity and 98% specificity.
I'm not sure if thats too good - 98% specificity means that for 1000 infected people, 20 will get away unidentified (false negative). But probably better than other tests, i guess?
I hope this is real and not an Indian Theranos
Interesting, I was led to believe this kind of research could only happen when we let drug companies gouge us for obscene profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the text before making this comment? > They found that the new test had 96% sensitivity and 98% specificity.
In the UK, only 2.7% of tests are returning positive results. At the end of July, this figure was 0.4%, which puts a floor on the specificity of the existing testing technology at 99.6%. If a test with only 98% specificity were used in the UK, the test would have a positive predictive value (the chance that the positive test represents a true positive result) of about 50%, far worse than existing technology.
Interesting, I was led to believe this kind of research could only happen when we let drug companies gouge us for obscene profits.
Right? Very good job from CSIR Govt. Labs - https://www.csir.res.in/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the text before making this comment? > They found that the new test had 96% sensitivity and 98% specificity.
I'm not sure if thats too good - 98% specificity means that for 1000 infected people, 20 will get away unidentified (false negative). But probably better than other tests, i guess?
> Here, we present FnCas9 Editor Linked Uniform Detection Assay (FELUDA)... At the heart of such a detection procedure lies the property of CRISPR proteins to accurately bind to target DNA or RNA, undergo conformational changes leading to cleavage of targets generating a reporter-based signal outcome.
> We then developed a pipeline to adapt FELUDA for an affinity-based fluorescent read-out system, where the amplification step generates biotinylated products which can then be immobilized on magnetic streptavidin beads.
The end-to-end process is similar to PCR and requires specialists to collect samples that are then processed by a lab.
[1] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.028167v2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the text before making this comment? > They found that the new test had 96% sensitivity and 98% specificity.
In the UK, only 2.7% of tests are returning positive results. At the end of July, this figure was 0.4%, which puts a floor on the specificity of the existing testing technology at 99.6%. If a test with only 98% specificity were used in the UK, the test would have a positive predictive value (the chance that the positive test represents a true positive result) of about 50%, far worse than existing technology.
It's been above 10%, I think, now for over two weeks.