If I look at figure 3 and 5 I immediately see quite a bit of overlap between the readings of the different groups..
$5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
41–50 of 137 posts
Re: $5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
#42> The study is published in the Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B Dare I ask why?
Because much like vacuums, cancer sucks
Re: $5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
#43> employs paper test strips coated with specific antibodies. These antibodies interact with cancer biomarkers [from] a drop of saliva > “[...] cost-effective, with the test strip costing just a few cents and the reusable circuit board priced at $5,” Wan says. That is cool: the 5$ isn't even the cost of the test, it's the one-time cost of your lab equipment. Of course, per sibling comments, the efficacy has yet to be…
"but even a few percent more early detections due to frequent testing would be a win" This is not the current medical thought on early screenings for various cancers. It used to be and I was confused about it until very recently. Indeed the medical community is still wrestling with the issue of screening harms. The consensus is shifting that screening should only be done if there is an existing condition or symptom o…
That depends on how harmful the screening is, how harmful treatment is, how harmful the disease is, how well the test works, and how common the disease is. (probably more that I'm not aware of)
Most cancer treatments are really nasty. Thus false positives are really bad: you destroy someone's quality of life. The earlier cancer is discovered the better chance that we can use a less harmful treatment (if only because of smaller dose of the harmful drugs)
The current breast cancer screening is an xray - which itself causes cancer (about 1 in 3000 cases of breast cancer discovered by xray wouldn't have got breast cancer in the first place without the screening - the screening is still wroth doing if you are at risk, but don't do it if you are not at risk).
Breast cancer can be deadly, but if caught early it is easy to treat (normally).
The medical concern generally isn't should we test all women for breast cancer, but when do we start testing and how often should we test. If this test is safer than an xray and sensitive enough it can be useful. Avoiding current breast cancer tests is good.
Re: $5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
#44As a reference. Currently an MRI scan can go from $400-$2000 (mostly covered by insurance) https://scan.com/body-parts/breast An MRI machine cost arounds $350.000 on average. https://www.blockimaging.com
A device such as this would never replace an MRI scan. The information provided is for screening purposes, at best. Also, diagnosis would typically be done using a mammography. The cost of such a scan is lower - around $100[0]. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4142190/
It doesn't have to replace it in all cases. If it can give a good indication that we don't have to do a MRI that is already a good thing.
Re: $5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
"but even a few percent more early detections due to frequent testing would be a win" This is not the current medical thought on early screenings for various cancers. It used to be and I was confused about it until very recently. Indeed the medical community is still wrestling with the issue of screening harms. The consensus is shifting that screening should only be done if there is an existing condition or symptom o…
That depends on how harmful the screening is, how harmful treatment is, how harmful the disease is, how well the test works, and how common the disease is. (probably more that I'm not aware of) Most cancer treatments are really nasty. Thus false positives are really bad: you destroy someone's quality of life. The earlier cancer is discovered the better chance that we can use a less harmful treatment (if only because…
>about 1 in 3000 cases of breast cancer discovered by xray wouldn't have got breast cancer in the first place without the screening
I had no idea the risks associated with xrays for breast cancer screenings were that high. Do you have a source (for that 1:3000 assertion) I can read?
Re: $5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
#46Figures 3 and 5 from the paper ( https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jvb/article/42/2/023202/3262988/Hig... ) have overlap between all the groups. The same measured output could have come from any of the non-cancer, or known-cancer, participants. While the means of these groups look nicely separable, that overlap means there will be significant false positives or false negatives. So I'd label the studyfinds headline of this bei…
Not at all. The model is quite accurate. In fact, with the distribution of samples that they have a model that predicts all cases as having cancer would also be very accurate. It would get 17/21 predictions right. The model lacks precision . I suspect that even with a fairly high cut off point the model would still produce a bevvy of false positive predictions due to that. It might still be useful as a screening step…
Sure we can be technically more surgical in our terminology, but GP is addressing the usage of 'accuracy' in the news headline. In that context, 'accuracy' is kinda a catchall term for both accuracy and precision.
Re: $5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
#47Seems like this was originally built for SARS-CoV-2. Here's the paper from 2021: https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jvb/article-abstract/39/3/033202/59...
and then in 2022 for detecting oral cancer: https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jvb/article/41/1/013201/2866658/Hig...
Re: $5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
#48Cool how they're using BNC connectors and ICs from the 1980's /s
These are vacuum nerds more than electronics nerds. Most homebrew electronics designed by physicists for basic research are going to have these aesthetic qualities.
Re: $5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
#49Press release: https://publishing.aip.org/publications/latest-content/would... Actual publication: https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jvb/article/42/2/023202/3262988/Hig... Experiment size is literally N=21, with 4 healthy participants, 3 in-situ breast cancers, and 14 invasive breast cancers. N=21 might as well be useless in my opinion. You can't draw any meaningful conclusions about statistical power of this test; if your pr…
That’s a bit harsh. It’s an exploratory study testing a new paradigm.
Re: $5 device tests for breast cancer in under 5 seconds: study
#50Press release: https://publishing.aip.org/publications/latest-content/would... Actual publication: https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jvb/article/42/2/023202/3262988/Hig... Experiment size is literally N=21, with 4 healthy participants, 3 in-situ breast cancers, and 14 invasive breast cancers. N=21 might as well be useless in my opinion. You can't draw any meaningful conclusions about statistical power of this test; if your pr…
Totally agree!