Our review summary
This short 375 story from Fox News was explored from the Sun. This explains the study using a synthetic intelligence algorithm.
As a result of at least 40 studying, Alzheimer's disease warns readers before being diagnosed with a "100% accuracy" report.
Beyond this story the story is full of cannons and canned quotes. News releases were very informative.
Why these issues
Alzheimer's early diagnosis is hot research. Stories about it may be "at the beginning" of Alzheimer's, that doctors may "slow down or stop" the disease before it starts.
It may not be possible at present, or there is no evidence to prove whether it is possible even in the near future, as it may have a vague appeal. This is an important subject in early stories and early history affecting the "disruption" of these neurological diseases.
Fraiding patients are misleading and their caregivers are at stake. Perhaps more discomfort – usually giving false hope based on baseline findings based on preliminary findings.
Is the quality of treatment / test / product / procedure in this story enough?
The story highlights one single benefit:
"That [artificial intelligence algorithm] For accurate diagnosis 6 out of 40 patients were diagnosed with dementia … 100 percent accuracy "
But these patients are not told who they are and what they choose. The specification is not specified as 82%. In other words, 1 (18%) of the 5 subjects did not predict the diagnosis ("wrong positive test").
Did the evil of intervention explain the story
Not specified. As with all screening tests, there is a risk of a fake-positive or wrong-negative result. You can create anxiety, confusion and wrong treatment.
Regarding the PEET scan, the American College of Radiology lists the following:
- Even though the radiation levels are low in tracer, pregnant women and nursing women are likely to be considered.
- The most important of allergic reactions occurring in tracer is rare.
A small circular instrument in the scanner can cause anxiety or scan from some patients.
Do you understand the quality of evidence?
More than a selective 100% sensitivity of this exam is highlighted (above 82% of neglecting mention of the feature) The story does not mention a major background:
The study group was very small (n = 40). All subjects have already been assigned a memory clinic reference. There was also their neurologist to order the brain scan. It is not clear how well this model model is known to the anchors of the disease.
Some of the quotes from people who have indicated that the results of this short and pilot study should be rejected or fixed by large study, but the readers must make clear the main reasons for this. Representative / representation of the study population.
In addition, Alzheimer's disease diagnosis requires accurate diagnosis (or less important study). In this study postmortem has been identified only by a patient's diagnosis.
Do you spread disease in this story?
Monk does not have disease in the story.
However, we found this text as a problem and it is interesting:
Alzheimer's early detection facilitated slow or slow progress
Although tone speculator, early detection misplaced Alzheimer's performance to slow down or stop work. No diagnosis at this time – Time for precisely diagnosis – This progressive neurology can be rapidly diagnosed or diagnosed.