Computer Detection Effective In Spotting Cancer

Anti-Globalism notes a large study out of the UK indicating that computer-aided detection can be as effective at spotting breast cancer as two experts reading the x-rays. Mammograms in Britain are routinely checked by two radiologists or technicians, which is thought to be better than a single review (in the US only a single radiologist reads each mammogram). In a randomized study of 31,000 women, researchers found that a single expert aided by a computer does as well as two pairs of eyes. CAD spotted nearly the same number of cancers, 198 out of 227, compared to 199 for the two readers. "In places like the United States, 'Where single reading is standard practice, computer-aided detection has the potential to improve cancer-detection rates to the level achieved by double reading,' the researchers said."

Re:more importantly:

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent poster is not offtopic, this troll is expressing its experience with this technology. It's saying that it got a false positive (fp) and underwent chemotherapy as a result, which caused the hair to fall off its genitalia (shaved pussy). Quite a tragic tale.

Trolls are really an amazing species once you learn to understand their language.

Lupus?

[jamesh]

Dr. House probably doesn't need one :-)

Depends... what's its false positive and false negative rate for Lupus?

Re:WTF? just WTF?

[TheLink]

I've got a preventative treatment for prostrate cancer.

It's called trans-fatty acids.

Take enough of it and your odds of getting prostrate cancer go way down.

There's plenty of scientific evidence to back my claims.