cecinestpasunbot

joined 2 years ago
[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

The false negative rate is also quite high. It will miss about 1 in 5 women with cancer. The reality is mammography is just not all that powerful as a screening tool. That’s why the criteria for who gets screened and how often has been tailored to try and ensure the benefits outweigh the risks. Although it is an ongoing debate in the medical community to determine just exactly what those criteria should be.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That’s just not generally true. Mammograms are usually only recommended to women over 40. That’s because the rates of breast cancer in women under 40 are low enough that testing them would cause more harm than good thanks in part to the problem of false positives.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

It’s a common problem in diagnostics and it’s why mammograms aren’t recommended to women under 40.

Let’s say you have 10,000 patients. 10 have cancer or a precancerous lesion. Your test may be able to identify all 10 of those patients. However, if it has a false positive rate of 5% that’s around 500 patients who will now get biopsies and potentially surgery that they don’t actually need. Those follow up procedures carry their own risks and harms for those 500 patients. In total, that harm may outweigh the benefit of an earlier diagnosis in those 10 patients who have cancer.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 76 points 1 year ago (25 children)

Unfortunately AI models like this one often never make it to the clinic. The model could be impressive enough to identify 100% of cases that will develop breast cancer. However if it has a false positive rate of say 5% it’s use may actually create more harm than it intends to prevent.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

she had absolutely nothing to do with […] any regime changes

That’s certainly not true if you if you know anything about recent Balkan history.

Between 1993 and 2001, Alexander was USAID’s deputy for the Europe region, focusing on immediate post-conflict reconstruction in the Balkans.

USAID financially supported anti-government organizations in the Balkans in order to foment regime change during her tenure. This isn’t a secret either. That information is publicly available. If she was working at USAID during that time at best she was only tangentially involved.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The Carter Center is literally run by a woman who worked for much of her career at USAID, an agency that has directly supported regime change efforts in Latin America.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

You don’t have to white wash Carter’s foreign policy to criticize Maduro.

Carter’s own national security advisor tried to legitimize Pol Pot for fuck’s sake. That’s not to mention Carter continued support for the Indonesian dictator as he carried out a genocide in East Timor. Oh and we shouldn’t forget the Carter administration started the program which funded and armed the right wing islamist progenitors of the Taliban in Afghanistan. More relevant to Latin America, Carter’s support for the El Savadoran military dictatorship was critical for its stability as it committed unspeakable atrocities.

Don’t be confused by Carter’s outward humanitarianism in his post presidency. He was not an aberration when it comes to US foreign policy and I wouldn’t expect the Carter center to be either. It’s literally run these days by a woman who spent much of her career working for USAID.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

AMLO is explicitly rejecting the idea that there is evidence of fraud which is what the article is about. The title is accurate even if AMLO is not taking sides.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

What are you talking about? It’s not the opposite at all. The short article just states that AMLO said that there was no evidence of fraud and that he’ll wait until the full vote tallies are released before commenting. That’s basically exactly what the title says.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Well that’s the problem. The article does not provide any evidence that workers migrating out a Xinjiang are being forced to do so. They just assume that based on their presumption that there is forced labor in Xinjiang. It’s a logical house of cards I suspect they’ve constructed to justify their own job as a lobbyist.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The accusation is that workers are being forcibly transferred by the Chinese government. That’s very different from the government supporting workers who want to voluntarily relocate within China to where the jobs are.

view more: ‹ prev next ›