Another Gaynor with DIL? Or a Zeta with NZO? Only time shall tell!
Printable View
No & No
Read this and then work it out
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
Yes, Triage must be better than Detect for saying you don't have it. If triage comes back negative then there is a 98% probability that you don't have it. If Detect says you don't have it, then there is a 97% probability that you don't have it. So, not much better then? Perhaps the difference is in the overall sensitivities, but I'm not sure what that means.
I knew it would take over 12000 posts and 'satan' to start talking product as a factor in commercial success. Is a knife better or a sword? It's about trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity when perfect diagnosis is not possible. Triage helps you find those who you are most confident in to be true positives and they can go straight under the knife.
The rest you can keep assessing before deciding on invasive procedures.
Detect says levels are normal, there are elevated levels that may need evaluation or you have a positive indication to the degree indicated.
Detect does not say you dont have it but if it says you do have bladder cancer you can be pretty sure its right.
Triage does not say you do have it but if it says you dont have bladder cancer you can be pretty sure its right
Something like that
No, I think triage is to pick out those that clearly don't have it. It has high negative predictive power. I'm just pointing out that so does Detect, and they are apparently the same technology. That doesn't mean they don't have commercial potential - I hope they do, although I am not currently holding.