I could write more but am tiring of this discussion.
If you're only tiring of it now, you have a lot more energy than I do. <g>
Again that seems like the kind of imprecision that I'd author you're criticizing did.
I didn't publish an article claiming some scientifically based percent change. I posted a response on SI asserting that the methodology for the claimed percent was ridiculous and a rough estimate that the percentage would be way, way less. The documentation and precision requirements are stringent for published articles with specific claims. Standards on SI? Not so much. And the standards for specific claims are stronger than those rough estimates regardless of venue. So, no, it's not the same as what I was criticizing.
I have explained repeatedly and in great detail why her methodology and thus her figure is, in fact, dead wrong. It is in my nature to have rationales for my opinions and assertions. That's just me. I've offered my rationales during our discussion for most of what I have assumed, opined, or claimed and have available for the asking all others. Having and offering rationales IMO is a matter of personal integrity. Otherwise you're just talking through your hat. So, since the author's basis for her number is totally and obviously bogus, I conclude that she is either stupid or lacking in integrity.
I will observe you're making an assumption as well, that early mammograms isn't anywhere close to 11%. The writer clearly assumed it was at least close to 11%.
The key word is "assumed." Why do you use that word?
She didn't proffer a mere assumption. She asserted a valid, data-based conclusion.
I, OTOH, offered a back-of-the-envelope estimate.
You, OTOH, offered either a WAG or simply your confirming support for your home-girl.
I'd expect an accurate % if it were attainable would be at least half of 11%. Maybe higher.
What basis do you have for that? Do you have any basis at all? At least the author offered a basis, however inapt.
Let's try a different angle on this. Let's start from scratch. If you were publishing an article on this subject and you wanted to include a figure for how much the US survival rate would be reduced if mammogram availability for forty-something women were cut in half, how would you get that number? What should she have done?
What you would need to know would be the number and percentage of forty-something diagnoses that now result in cures. Then you could factor that out of the overall survival rate. Either that or find some data where the computation were already done for you. That's what a reputable writer would do.
A reputable writer would definitely not bring in European survival rates because they tell you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that informs this question. The introduction of the European data is a sideshow. Since Europeans are not provided routine mammograms below 50, they have no data on forty-something breast cancer diagnoses and rates so there's nothing to glean or compare. Duh. As I have tried repeatedly to illustrate, bringing European rates into this is of no more value than bringing in the cost of tea in China or the batting average of the Red Sox. It's ridiculous and she either knew that or should have. (And, you should by now know it as well.)
Of course, a published author would have better access to data than you and I but we can find enough to put together a rough estimate.
We can find that somewhere around 15% of diagnoses occur in the forties. (We don't know how many of those were found via mammogram.) And that 15.1% of deaths occur between 45 and 55, which would be the age range that determines survival for a 40 something diagnosis. Even allowing that some of those deaths could be women diagnosed younger than forty and just over 50, that's pretty much a wash. Using the author's data/assumption/guess that the available mammograms would be cut in half, you'd have to cut your wash in half. Half of a wash is most likely less than one percent.
Alternately, we can use the published figure that one in just under 2000 mammograms in that age range produces a cure. That's about .05%. Cut in half according to the author's criterion and it's maybe .03% The overall rate of survival claimed for mammograms is 95%. So you can compute the rate at which survival would be reduced were the routine mammograms for forty somethings reduced by half with the formula ((.03 x .15) x .95) and you get .43%, which is clearly less than one percent.
The point of these alternative figures is not to claim precision but merely to show by order of magnitude that the eleven percent figure is unlikely to the max. I could tell just by eyeballing it that the eleven percent figure was way off but the above are a couple of methodologies that produce rough estimates that concur.
In summary, I have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that her methodology was ridiculous. And I have shown two methodologies for reasonable rough estimates that produce a percentage more in keeping with my rough estimate than her alleged scientific calculation.
Now, do you want to tell me how you reached "at least half of 11%," "maybe higher"?
seer.cancer.gov
allbusiness.com |
