this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
256 points (96.0% liked)
science
20330 readers
1519 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The study did not present the dogs with samples from "years before" and did not have an accuracy of 98%. It had a sensitivity (percent of positive samples called positive) of 70% for one dog and 80% for the other. Their specificity (percent of negative samples called negative) was 90% and 98%.
Since there were 60 positive samples and 40 negative samples, their accuracies were 82% and 91%, respectively.
Not 98%. And with samples from patients currently diagnosed (or controls).