Whoa. or LOL. This sounds like a typical in vitro diagnostic validation study from 20 years ago (although some are still performed today). Modern IVD practitioners know never to compare a diseased group with normal controls (even matched). The performance of tests investigated that way can approach 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity (…
Whoa. or LOL. This sounds like a typical in vitro diagnostic validation study from 20 years ago (although some are still performed today). Modern IVD practitioners know never to compare a diseased group with normal controls (even matched). The performance of tests investigated that way can approach 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity (c statistic of 1.0), but end up a coin toss (c statistic of 0.5) in a prospective all-comers study.
This should not have passed the first round of peer review, perhaps triaged to not even be sent to reviewers. It is just not science. It's wishful thinking.
Whoa. or LOL. This sounds like a typical in vitro diagnostic validation study from 20 years ago (although some are still performed today). Modern IVD practitioners know never to compare a diseased group with normal controls (even matched). The performance of tests investigated that way can approach 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity (c statistic of 1.0), but end up a coin toss (c statistic of 0.5) in a prospective all-comers study.
This should not have passed the first round of peer review, perhaps triaged to not even be sent to reviewers. It is just not science. It's wishful thinking.