We have the technology to build every kind of automobile or piece of machinery to run on anything other than gas, diesel, oil. But the oil companies will not allow it.
However, implementing such a test on a population scale for a cancer that is rather rare is probably not feasible from a cost stand point.
re: 15 year old says "F You" to big medicine, develops $.03 cancer test that is (Posted on 2/27/13 at 7:51 a.m. to MI LSU)
Note how it says nothing about how specific his test is for detecting the cancer. I suspect there is a reason for that.
SENSITIVITY = TP / TP + FN
SPECIFICITY = TN / TN + FP
Let’s say you have a group of 1000. 200 have cancer, 800 do not. You test the entire group with this kid’s assay and 600 of them test positive for the protein from which his test is based. 199 of the 200 who actually have the cancer test positive. ES UN MILAGRO!!! The test is 99.5% sensitive for this cancer!! But wait, what about those 401 poor saps who tested positive for cancer who don’t actually have the disease? The test is only about 50% specific. You have to walk into the room and tell them they might have pancreatic cancer, which is all but a death sentence. No big deal.
So in actuality a test that is 99.5% sensitive could be an awful, awful screening test, where you typically are willing to sacrifice sensitivity for the sake of specificity.
Winning a fricking science fair =/= having a magic bullet for pancreatic cancer detection. Could it potentially be a good idea? Sure. I assure you that if it is a good test it will find its way to the market. But let’s pump the brakes a bit.
ATTABOY! Got one for the home team!
They could find an efficient form of alternate energy if they wanted to, but oil makes too much money.
Will yall just find the freaking cure in a pill form with no side effects already
quote:Its impossible to make that statement at this point without prospective data. If the test is as cheap as they claim, it has a good shot at being cost effective as a screening tool.
So in actuality devising a screening test that detects pancreatic cancer with both sensitivity and specificity, while not being a treatment itself, would probably increase survival rates dramatically. However, implementing such a test on a population scale for a cancer that is rather rare is probably not feasible from a cost stand point.
quote:The article is kind of misleading. The kid didn't discover the idea of using tumor markers (mesothelin in this example) for the detection/diagnosis of cancer. He developed a cheap and sensitive way to detect certain proteins in the blood that was previously much more tedious.
You sure? I haven't even read this article but nano technology would easily make this possible and expensive.