Slashdot Mirror
Cervical Cancer Just Got Much Deadlier -- Because Scientists Fixed a Math Error (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Cervical cancer is 77 percent more deadly for black women and 44 percent more deadly for white women than previously thought, researchers report today in the journal Cancer. But the lethal boosts aren't from more women actually dying than before -- they're from scientists correcting their own calculation error. In the past, their estimates didn't account for women who had undergone hysterectomies -- which almost always removes the cervix, and with it the risk of getting cervical cancer. We don't include men in our calculation because they are not at risk for cervical cancer and by the same measure, we shouldn't include women who don't have a cervix," Anne F. Rositch, the study's lead author and an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins told The New York Times. For the study, the researchers looked at national cervical cancer mortality data collected between 2000 to 2012. They also looked into national survey data on the prevalence of hysterectomies. Then, they used those figures to adjust the number of women at risk of dying of cervical cancer. The researchers found that black women have a mortality rate of 10.1 per 100,000. For white women, the rate is 4.7 per 100,000. Past estimates had those rates at 5.7 and 3.2, respectively. The new death rate for black women in the US is on par with that of developing countries. Though the new study wasn't designed to address racial disparities, experts speculate that the large difference reflects unequal access to preventative medicine and quality healthcare.
And write headlines like the people here aren't two-year-olds, OK?
That is the biggest problem faced in the U.S. today. If it wasn't written in a more than two millennia old book it just isn't true.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Should I do an Angelina Jolie on my gear, just in case?
Seems like an obvious error from a statistical analysis standpoint. Makes me wonder how much critical medical research has obvious errors like this.
Title is misandrist!!! Also, Chrome can SUCK MY BALLS because misogynist is accepted, but misandrist is not in their gay dictionary!
Slashdong: News for idiots. Things which matter not. SUCK IT!
Captcha: SUCKS!
See? I always told everyone math give you cancer! Now I finally have a proof.
First World Country with Third World medical access problem. I guess U.S. people should just move to any third world country as they'd get more use out of their money while at the same time, receive better medical access through u.s. founded help organisations than in the United States of Assholes.
The new death rate for black women in the US is on par with that of developing countries.
In other news, insurance companies make record profits since Obamacare
lucm, indeed.
It seems to me both are true and useful. I would even go so far as to say the original number is more useful.
1 in X women die from cervical cancer. (old number)
Of women who did not have a hysterectomy (prior to cancer), 1 in Y die from cervical cancer. (new number)
Both are true. How might mortality rates be used? One important use is comparisons for policy making decisions:
10 in X women die from heart disease, 1 in X die from cervical cancer. Therefore, we should invest more prevention efforts toward heart disease.
Or:
X% of women die from alcoholism, Y% from cervical cancer. Therefore, we should spend the most money researching cures for ______ ?
For these policy, questions, we want to know how many people are affected. Period. It's not a useful comparison to say "of people who drink, X die from alcoholism, while of people who have a uterus, Y die from cervical cancer". Those numbers don't give us any useful comparison with which to make decisions. The useful numbers for decision making are "how many people could be helped by addressing this issue?"
It sounds like they just divided women into two sub-groups, one of which has a zero risk of getting cervical cancer.
The overall risk of cancer for women is still the same.
Depending on what you are using the statistic for (e.g. assessing your own risk of getting cervical cancer, large-scale targeted prevention efforts, allocating government health-care funding based on overall population, etc.), you may find the new set of statistics more useful than the old one, or vice-versa.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Cervical cancer didn't become deadlier, we've just become slightly better informed.
Before guessing the racial disparity is from unequal access, rule out Vitamin D. Low Vitamin D levels are associated with higher rates of some cancers. Darker skin causes slower Vitamin D production from exposure to sunlight.
I can bet the whole paper was written by big pharma who manufactures HPV vaccine.
Do we still include men who voted for Hillary when calculating the risk of dying from testicular cancer? If so, it seems that just got a lot more deadly, as well!
Cervical cancer didn't get more deadly, statistics have nothing to do with whether or not a certain cancer is more lethal or less susceptible to treatment.
The statistics also no longer apply to 'just' women, they only apply to women who haven't (yet) had their cervix removed, it's a different subset of people. 1/3 of women get hysterectomies (2/3 of those are deemed to be unnecessary).
It's not necessarily true that you can't get cervical cancer after a hysterectomy, even with the cervix removed (not necessarily completely removed in all cases), plenty of people have cervical cancer already spread to nearby organs.
So 'at best' these statistics just identified that you're more susceptible to cervical cancer before treatment/prevention of cervical cancer.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
"Cervical Cancer Just Got Much Deadlier -- Because Scientists Fixed a Math Error"
No, it's just as deadly as it always was, it's just being measured more accurately now. The perception of the mortality value changed, but nothing else.
The headline would have you believe that scientists changed a physical property of the universe because they moved a decimal point or something.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Article is paywalled so I can't read their actual data. If R is the rate at which women die of cervical cancer, n is the number of women who die of cervical cancer, N is the population of women, and h is the fraction who have had hysterectomies.
R_initial = n / N
R_adjusted = n / (N - h*N) = (n / N) * (1 / (1-h))
R_adjusted / R_initial = 1 / (1- h)
(1-h) = 1 / (R_adjusted / R_initial)
h = 1 - 1/(R_adjusted / R_initial)
For black women, R_adjusted / R_initial = 1.77, so
h = 1 - 1/1.77 = 0.435
43.5% of black women have had hysterectomies.
For white women, R_adjusted / R_initial = 1.44, so
h = 1 - 1/1.44 = 0.306
30.6% of white women have had hysterectomies.
According to this site over 1/3 of women over age 60 have had hysterectomies. Which seems to agree with the above calculated rates. I had no idea hysterectomies were that prevalent.
The virus that causes cervical cancer is transmitted as the result of habitual unprotected sex. When you have your typical black women squeezing out 8 or more pickaninny pups by 8 different "baby daddies" then it is pretty obvious that they are engaging in unprotected sex with partners of questionable morality. Add to the fact that not every act of intercourse results in pregnancy, and that intercourse whlle alredy pregnant obviously won't result result in pregancy. Your typical negro woman probably has unprotected sex with several hundered black men over the course of her life. Should it surprise anyone that their cervical cancer rate is through the roof?
and so8e oF the Consider worthwhile
Exactly what the Subject says. Cervical cancer did not get deadlier. That would be an adjustment to the 1, 3, or 5 year mortality rates which are not addressed here. What they adjusted was the incidence of the disease, i.e. the likelihood that you will get the disease.
Their data is valid presumable, but this headline about "deadlier" is wholly inaccurate. Report what the study actually concluded, not clickbait.
experts speculate that the large difference reflects unequal access to preventative medicine and quality healthcare.
Which "experts"? Why dismiss all the other cultural and genetic possibilities?
If it is about "access", why do poor whites have better life expectancy, and why are Hispanics so healthy and long lived in the US?
I am pretty sure about this information you shared because its really helpful for everyone Obat Kuat pria alami Obat Kuat pria Alami Online Cara mengatasi ejakulasi dinisecara alami Obat kuat Obat Kuat Pria Obat pembesar penis Cara memperbesar penis secara alami Obat kuat online Cara mengobati ejakulasi dini secara alami Obat kuat Online Cara mengatasi darah tinggi secara alami Obat alami darah Tinggi Hajar jahanam Cap Piramid Minyak Lintah Papua asli
..(and apparently harder than surgery).
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
@"The researchers found that black women have a mortality rate of 10.1 per 100,000. For white women, the rate is 4.7 per 100,000. "
No, this is incorrect, NOW the phrase should read "The researchers found that black women WHO HAVE A CERVIX have a mortality rate of 10.1 per 100,000. For white women with a cervix, the rate is 4.7 per 100,000. "
The original number was correct, and women without a cervix knew they weren't at risk of cervical cancer and the women who had cancer had an easy estimate of survival rates because they know who is a woman.
I don't understand why they split the groups into black and white.. Does "black" cover anyone who isn't white, or are we ignoring asians? And what does this have to do with cervical cancer anyway?
If there is an actual medical/statistical reason for separating groups like that, I'm genuinely curious, otherwise whats the point?
First, praise for communicating the error!
Second, how does such a beginners boo boo slip into statistics? I understand forgetting females without a cervix. But beings that weren't conceived with one? It sort of leaves the impression of botched research. Perhaps the findings and interpretation were rushed out to appease patrons. What else brings back memories of Roquefort and needs a once over? Did they confine the research to humans or more generally to primates?
So many questions.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
a) Scientists never make huge mistakes like this, and 'the science is settled', etc.
b) I thought there was 'no such thing as race', so why the racial disparity? They'll be telling us that black men are ten times more likely to murder white women they are in a relationship with than white men...
So they correct the figures by removing women with hysterectomies from the group and the number jumps up, and then they claim that the cause is "unequal access to healthcare" causing higher stats in that group. So I take it the women are getting their uterus and cervix removed by NON health care professionals?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Medicine and biology are not sciences!!
Statistics can be used to prove or disprove anything regardless of equal data access. They probably did it on purpose. It's not like Cervical Cancer or statistics are a new thing. We've probably knew about HPV forever (just as an example) and now that documents are being declassified or exposed left and right, it's better to make things like this look like a "new discovery" instead of people do actual research and sue. Funny how Johnson & Johnson just got caught knowing about talcum powder and cervical cancer links. Related?....hmmmm...
Shouldn't including men be even more useful? A disease which affects 1 in X women should get the same attention as a disease which affects 1 in 2*X people.
I don't know... I know a lot of black women, dated several. On average, they had more sexual partners than the women of other races I've dated (meaning more HPV exposure), were less likely to see a doctor for routine screening (despite ALL having health insurance and seeing a doctor whenever they needed one), and were far more likely to express the "wait and see" approach so common in men. I'm sure healthcare access plays a role, but cultural elements do also appear to be present as well, and would need to be accounted for (and negated) in any plan of action. Much like getting men to check their testicles.
"Though the new study wasn't designed to address racial disparities, experts speculate that the large difference reflects unequal access to preventative medicine and quality healthcare."
This is very strange, because we are spending lots and lots of money trying to get every woman to attend the damn screening (which together with vaccination is the only way to prevent cervical cancer). Do you know how hard that is?
It's not because of unequal access, it's not because of "muh oppression", it's because we cannot do more than send out invitations, offer self-sampling that can be mailed in, send out a gyno-bus, or offer online/phone consultations. We cannot forcibly make them. Do you have any other suggestions? Or is it more fun to claim "muh equality" on this one too?
In short, if they do not *want* to take a smear, they won't. I've heard women say "what's the point? Even if I have high-grades lesion I won't come in to the clinic". How the fuck are you supposed to improve care for women that effectively try to hamper their own survival chances? Do you know how many projects, how much money, and how many scientists are working on ways to up the screening coverage? it's practically impossible to get the non-attenders to regularly take smears. Even when their own mothers die from cervical cancer they *still* won't go.
Experts my ass.
It's a classification error.
There is STILL not even a test for HPV in men, let alone a vaccine. Why is this discriminatory policy still the norm? You can vaccinate girls all day long but you will not halt the spread of HPV among men, because a vaccinated woman can still carry the virus for a short time (days or weeks) until her body clears it.
A woman who has multiple sexual partners can still spread the HPV she is carrying to multiple men, and the men aren't even allowed to find out they have it unless they have one of the strains that shows symptoms by causing warts.
The question we have to ask is, why was only a woman-specific vaccine developed, and why is there STILL no test for asymptomatic HPV in men? It just so happens that the asymptomatic strains of the virus are the ones that most commonly cause cervical cancer. So, one would think there would be impetus to develop a test for ALL people, regardless of gender.
Cancer might not be caused by lack of quality healthcare,
Actually, in this case, lack of quality healthcare DOES rise the incidence of cancer:
Like several other types of cancer (e.g.: like colon cancer ; unlike pancreatic cancer), it's possible with a routine test to detect cellular anomalies long before those degenerate into an actual cervical cancer (the same way you can notice polyps on a scopy long before an actual cancer).
But for those early detection to be done, the woman needs to be able to afford going to a gynaecologist for said test to be done.
Otherwise she'll eventually get actual cervical cancer.
Also, cervical cancer is one of the few cancers where there is a well known and documented infectious cause - human papilloma virus - that accounts for a significant chunk of cervical cancer.
But again, for prevention to work, the woman needs to be able to afford going to a doctor who'll administer an HPV vaccine.
(or - less optimally - to gynaecologists who'll at least detect the HPV infection and do closer monitoring)
Otherwise the poor woman will catch HPV, which will go unnoticed, and eventually she's at high risk being one of those who caught a cervical cancer as a consequence of HPV infection.
(Disclaimer : I am a doctor, Jim ! ...but population health isn't my speciality).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
One of the reasons we get foaming at the mouth antivaxxers is a redefinition of autism a bit over ten years back. The other is to look for something to blame other the cruel and hard reality of genetics.
We need not trust ANY data. Even our own. Verify.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Math is racist, cancer is mysoganist!
* trigerred *
Does developing nation include third world nations? Does anyone doubt that black people are murdered by our social systems? So let's go have a rally about how America is number one in the world. That's enough to keep CHUMP supporters happy.
This is why I never touch the stuff.
Let's defund Planned Parenthood! Those pap smears will just depress you, and we'll use some alternative facts to lower these numbers.
The useful numbers for decision making are "how many people could be helped by addressing this issue?"
No, the first and primary useful number consideration is, "Now that we're 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and most new jobs are low-paying junk that barely creates any tax revenue, and we have an exploding entitlement spending problem the mere interest on the debt for which will soon displace nearly all discretionary spending ... what can we afford to research?"
You want to address the X in Y cases of Z disease in given populations? Return to producing the sort of economic health and largess that allows us to spend that kind of money in the first place. Otherwise, it's like a bankrupt person trying to decide whether to buy a new raincoat or an umbrella so they don't get their nice to outfit wet, because, you know, priorities. A house in fiscal order can spend vastly more money on everything from pure medical research to Mars missions without crushing the very economy that underwrites such things.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Diabetes and cancer have to be analyzed together. It has been known for a long time but rarely publicized that people with diabetes have higher rates of cancer and higher mortality rates from cancer. Blacks have a 75 percent higher rate of diabetes than Whites and Black women have a higher rate of diabetes than Black men. Previous medical studies that have looked at cancer rates conditional on having diabetes have found that once having diabetes is considered, the rates of cancer mortality between Blacks and Whites is equal. Unless the researchers conditional the probability of cancer mortality on having diabetes, the unconditional data will always show higher rates of cancer deaths for Blacks. Unfortunately, researchers and media generally attribute the difference in cancer mortality between Blacks and Whites as a difference in cancer treatment and diagnosis instead of the known difference in diabetes rates, which is the primary reason for the difference in mortality.
I don't disagree with your general conclusion when it comes to spending that politicians force on us. I don't think my post said anything about government spending, though.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute has $18 billion dollars, the Kellogg Foundation has $8 billion. Both spend on health / medical programs. I personally decide how to donate my money.
Nope. Y makes you immune, only X die from cervical cancer.
...but it sounds like a self-solving problem.
Unless you are using the numbers to support removing the cervix.
Wait isn't it technically possible to die from Cervical cancer without a Cervix - just have some stray metastasized cancer after the removal of the cervix. Let this uncaught cancer expand to terminal levels - then the poor subject could still have died of cancer from a body part they now lack. Granted that would probably be a major outlier.
(MUST READ: HOW I GOT CURED FROM MY HIV/HPV VIRUS) I was diagnosed of HIV in 2012 and I have tried all possible means to get cure but all to no avail, until i saw a post in a health forum about a herbal doctor from West Africa who prepare herbal medicine to cure all kind of diseases including herpes virus, at first i doubted if it was real but decided to give it a try, when i contact this herbal doctor via his email: drewanherbshome@gmail.com, he prepared a herbal medicine and sent it to me via courier service, when i received this herbal medicine, he gave me step by instructions on how to apply it, when i applied it as instructed, i was cured of this deadly virus HIV within 3weeks of usage, I am now free from the virus, i was tasted negative. He also told me he cures so many disease like Hepatitis, cancer Influenza, coronary artery, lower respiratory infections,Trachea, bronchus, HIV/AIDS, HPV, Herpes, Kidney failure, Arthritis, Diabetes, Hypertension, Stroke, Obesity, Infertility/Impotency, Cancer, Eye Problem, Skin Problem, Fibroid Tumor, Ulcer, Prostate Problem, Asthma, Weight Management, Gonorrhea/Staphylococcus, Candide, Low sperm can, Weak erection, Weak ejaculation, Pile, Elephantiasis, Skin Infection, Paralysis, If you want your ex back and many more he listed. please if you are suffering from any of these diseases contact this great herbal doctor called Dr. Ewan on his Email: drewanherbshome@gmail.com. You can also call him on his mobile number via: +233245731436 . website: www.drewanherbshome.wix.com/ewan