Our business learned about Hoeg Law via mgoblog. He has done some excellent work for us in addition to being an all around good guy. Saddened to see this news and hope Richard gets well soon.
That’s so true about PPV, let’s hope that fact is remembered as more tests are available for the test, screen, trace strategy, which is likely in our future
Although it is true that the test requires interpretation, that is true for much of laboratory medicine. The difference between well run labs and big box labs can be apparent in the interpretation of tests with gray areas. The number of cycles has to be validated for each lab because it depends on the equipment, reagents, etc. There is an example in the FDA guidance on page 36:
Part of the frustration with the FDA and CDC handling of testing in February were the barriers imposed in getting these tests up and running at labs that know what they’re doing. Many of the questions that you raise are standard protocol for validation of new Laboratory Developed Tests. Experienced laboratory directors know how to get these tests validated quickly and effectively, but the FDA created significant, unnecessary barriers.
It’s a great question, I wonder the same thing. You would expect that a lower viral load would lead to fewer infections, but who knows. It seems like there are a few super spreaders (the Biogen exec, patient 31 in South Korea) that are extreme outliers, would be nice to know how that correlates with viral load.
The spirit of the argument is correct, but I fear you may have your PPV, NPV, sensitivity, and specificity confused. The bottom line is that few tests are perfect, and the imperfection of the test should match the intended use, i.e. a population screening test should not have a high false positive rate if the prevalence of the disease is low.
Recent Comments
Software Carpentry is a good way to get started:
https://software-carpentry.org/
They have courses on general software practices, Python, and R
Our business learned about Hoeg Law via mgoblog. He has done some excellent work for us in addition to being an all around good guy. Saddened to see this news and hope Richard gets well soon.
That’s so true about PPV, let’s hope that fact is remembered as more tests are available for the test, screen, trace strategy, which is likely in our future
PCR is now the gold standard for much of diagnostic virology testing:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwviro/clinical-testing/
Although it is true that the test requires interpretation, that is true for much of laboratory medicine. The difference between well run labs and big box labs can be apparent in the interpretation of tests with gray areas. The number of cycles has to be validated for each lab because it depends on the equipment, reagents, etc. There is an example in the FDA guidance on page 36:
https://www.fda.gov/media/136472/download
Part of the frustration with the FDA and CDC handling of testing in February were the barriers imposed in getting these tests up and running at labs that know what they’re doing. Many of the questions that you raise are standard protocol for validation of new Laboratory Developed Tests. Experienced laboratory directors know how to get these tests validated quickly and effectively, but the FDA created significant, unnecessary barriers.
It’s a great question, I wonder the same thing. You would expect that a lower viral load would lead to fewer infections, but who knows. It seems like there are a few super spreaders (the Biogen exec, patient 31 in South Korea) that are extreme outliers, would be nice to know how that correlates with viral load.
The spirit of the argument is correct, but I fear you may have your PPV, NPV, sensitivity, and specificity confused. The bottom line is that few tests are perfect, and the imperfection of the test should match the intended use, i.e. a population screening test should not have a high false positive rate if the prevalence of the disease is low.
If he has cryptorchidism then they are one and the same