Top 25 played on iTUNES:
Haha I knew I liked "Replay", but I didnt realize there was such a large discrepancy :P 239 plays vs 73 for the rest!? Thats a not 2, but 3x difference xD----
I read this article today that commented on a study that tried to see if regular CT scans would help patients detect lung cancer earlier. A seemingly innocuous and helpful study, but these were the implications:
-Getting regular ct scans = detect lung cancer early = study found it saved 1 in 300 patients' lives.
-However, couple things involved:
1. costs of CT scans
2. false positives/negat
3. the patient population they studied were SMOKERS.
Am I the only one who finds this study illogical? There were even scientific people in the article that commented on the inability to draw practical applications of the study, since while the CT scans saved 1 in 300 patients, there were still issues with the fact that CT scans are expensive, so people not be able to even get them. I guess the main point was to figure out if it WAS possible to detect lung cancer early... I was just floored by the fact they used smokers, because from the perspective of the article it seemed like this testing was only to save smokers from lung cancer (which could probably be solved by telling them to QUIT). But I'm guessing (and hoping) they chose smokers bc smokers are more prone to get lung cancer, so its an easier-to-study population??
Ironically, we've been going through healthcare in class, and one comment is that our 'healthcare' system is really in fact a 'sick care' system, since we're great at treating sick people, but terrible at preventing people from getting sick. This is a perfect example of the wasteful spending that can go on. :/
-However, couple things involved:
1. costs of CT scans
2. false positives/negat
3. the patient population they studied were SMOKERS.
Am I the only one who finds this study illogical? There were even scientific people in the article that commented on the inability to draw practical applications of the study, since while the CT scans saved 1 in 300 patients, there were still issues with the fact that CT scans are expensive, so people not be able to even get them. I guess the main point was to figure out if it WAS possible to detect lung cancer early... I was just floored by the fact they used smokers, because from the perspective of the article it seemed like this testing was only to save smokers from lung cancer (which could probably be solved by telling them to QUIT). But I'm guessing (and hoping) they chose smokers bc smokers are more prone to get lung cancer, so its an easier-to-study population??
Ironically, we've been going through healthcare in class, and one comment is that our 'healthcare' system is really in fact a 'sick care' system, since we're great at treating sick people, but terrible at preventing people from getting sick. This is a perfect example of the wasteful spending that can go on. :/
original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/health/research/05cancer.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y
No comments :
Post a Comment