Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dogmatism's commentslogin

given the entrenched attitudes and the time it takes to actually get people to do the thing as evidenced by all the contrarians in the thread...

it would take a lot more than that. Ain't no doc got all that time to go through all this with every person who should take cholesterol lowering medicine but wants to argue their internet sourced bs


I mean, how can you not like it?

It's hyperlegible!


you can get that both from Lenovo and Dell


>The requirements for the physics major were only a handful of math credits shy of the math major.

lol, that's how I ended up with a math major. Got lost in the physics (realized I had no intuition for what was actually happening, just manipulating equations) took a couple extra courses, and boom! Math!


I think there's a story about him beating a white kid from a rival private school in a boxing match

certainly unreliable reports of him doing well in informal rooftop bouts amongst the various Wing Chun students in Hong Kong

there are also stories of him getting his ass kicked by William Chung and Wong Shun Leung (others of Yp Man's students) and being a petty little bitch and getting kicked out of Yp Man's school

Who knows. It's all apocrypha at this point


> It's all apocrypha at this point

There are still people alive who witnessed these events first hand. I don't think first-hand accounts should be labeled apocrypha. But... maybe it means you doubt them? Fair enough.


It’s difficult to establish veracity of any of these accounts. Some of them are real, some aren’t, but the two are mostly indistinguishable.

Is apocrypha a reasonable word to use for that?


There's an old saying in Alabama:

Q: What does a divorce and a tornado have in common? A: Someone gonna lose them a trailer


They tell this joke in Louisiana too but usually the punchline is divorce in Chalmette (looked down upon suburb of New Orleans). The joke became significantly less funny when a deadly tornado actually hit the neighboring town of Arabi.


The application does present some data: 41% sensitivity, 92% specificity, but that's not the basis of approval, nor has it been published in a peer reviewed journal (or even with proper details like a table 1 or detailed description of control BP measurement methods, or even what "FDA approved" home device and protocol was used for reference)

Even assuming the device performs exactly as described (difficult to say given the paucity of presented data) the performance characteristics are the opposite of what you want in a screening test.


The hypertension feature was approved based on the pathway as being similar to the already approved Viz.ai software to detect hypertrophic cardiomyopathy by ECG analysis

That's not really the same thing at all


1) No, machine learning perfoms better than typical "risk scores" such as the RCRI (it was not tested against doctors clinical judgement)

2) Even so...so what? What we don't have is any reliable way to reduce surgical complications when the benefit outweighs the risk when the risk is elevated


For 2) I guess that if you know you will die with high probability, you will search for ( if at all possible) an alternative treatment ( which might have side effects but at least you’re alive ) ?


It doesn't really work like that for the most part

If you actually need a really high risk surgery, you probably have a terrible prognosis without it

For instance, in the pivotal trial of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis (TAVR) the people were deemed too high risk for surgery, so got nothing (well, medicine only which doesn't really change anything for this condition) or TAVR. The medicine arm had 50% mortality (1 year I think?) whereas the TAVR arm was "only" 30%!

Now that didn't mean all those 30% of deaths were due to the procedure or even the aortic stenosis. I think that ran 10% or so (going off memory here). They just had so many other problems. For comparison, TAVR is now done in low-risk people, and I think the 1 year mortality is <3%

The things that go into making someone "high risk" in the STS (cardiac surgery) risk score are for the most part pretty obvious. If your heart muscle is super weak (or you need a machine to keep going before surgery), you have kidney failure, prior strokes, combined heart problems, bad liver or lung disease, etc etc. You can calculate a score, but you probably can guess it from the door of the room


The bacterial contribution to MACE has been an ongoing subject of investigation for decades

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa043526

still hasn't really panned out


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: