this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
73 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

59235 readers
3726 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] roguetrick@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is going to just increase false positives and unnecessary biopsies. This level of surveillance is not beneficial.

Edit: maybe for extremely high risk groups like it says in the article I guess, but the fact that they're explicitly testing it to detect noncancerous cysts (false positives) doesn't improve my confidence.

[–] Abstract8188@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No one is going to get a biopsy after testing positive once. A positive test would mean you go to a doctor for a proper mammogram, THEN maybe a biopsy.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's still an increased level of surveillance that is going against current recommendations. Unnecessary mammograms still result in unnecessary biopsies. You could use it for increased monitoring to detect growth I guess, but I doubt ultrasound is capable of that sort of resolution.