Super interesting, thank you for writing this! I admire them so much for pushing healthcare into the future. However I read their data in a different way. 14.1% of people needed treatment/monitoring, 9.7% had severe/moderate/early-signs, which leaves 4.4% (119 people) who appeared to need treatment/monitoring, but actually didn't. Maybe I've misunderstood though - point being, it'd be great if they published & discussed the false positives!
Thanks Tamsin for your comment! Yes on reflection I agree with your interpretation - I'll amend the text in the newsletter above and flag the edit.
I think there's an interesting debate here around the balance between (1) how many correct diagnoses Neko makes (life saving + severe/moderate/early-signs) versus (2) how many false positives they flag alongside how much health anxiety they could create by flagging benign lumps which don't need clinical intervention.
One UK GP (doctor for those based outside the UK!) mentioned that there is a tension between very early diagnosis and ability to clinically intervene. The benign lump is a good example here.
My view is that there is a balance but it leans towards more data to make more informed choices. Curious to hear your views!
Super interesting, thank you for writing this! I admire them so much for pushing healthcare into the future. However I read their data in a different way. 14.1% of people needed treatment/monitoring, 9.7% had severe/moderate/early-signs, which leaves 4.4% (119 people) who appeared to need treatment/monitoring, but actually didn't. Maybe I've misunderstood though - point being, it'd be great if they published & discussed the false positives!
Thanks Tamsin for your comment! Yes on reflection I agree with your interpretation - I'll amend the text in the newsletter above and flag the edit.
I think there's an interesting debate here around the balance between (1) how many correct diagnoses Neko makes (life saving + severe/moderate/early-signs) versus (2) how many false positives they flag alongside how much health anxiety they could create by flagging benign lumps which don't need clinical intervention.
One UK GP (doctor for those based outside the UK!) mentioned that there is a tension between very early diagnosis and ability to clinically intervene. The benign lump is a good example here.
My view is that there is a balance but it leans towards more data to make more informed choices. Curious to hear your views!