Page 182 - Malcolm Gladwell - Talking to Strangers
P. 182

More on the dilemmas caused by haystack searches: Middle-aged women, in most countries, are
                    encouraged to get regular mammograms. But breast cancer is really rare. Just under 0.5 percent of
                    women who get a mammogram actually have the disease. Looking for breast cancer is therefore a
                    haystack search.
                    Epidemiologist  Joann  Elmore  recently  calculated  just  what  this  means.  Imagine,  she  said,  that  a
                    group  of  radiologists  gave  a  mammogram  to  100,000  women.  Statistically,  there  should  be  480
                    cancers in that 100,000. How many will the radiologists find? 398. Believe me, for a task as difficult
                    as reading a mammogram, that’s pretty good.

                    But in the course of making those correct diagnoses, the radiologists will also run up 8,957 false
                    positives.  That’s  how  haystack  searches  work:  if  you  want  to  find  that  rare  gun  in  someone’s
                    luggage, you’re going to end up flagging lots of hair dryers.
                    Now suppose you want to do a better job of spotting cancers. Maybe getting 398 out of 480 cases
                    isn’t good enough. Elmore did a second calculation, this time using a group of radiologists with an
                    extra  level  of  elite  training.  These  physicians  were  very  alert,  and  very  suspicious—the  medical
                    equivalent of Brian Encinia. They correctly identified 422 of the 480 cases—much better! But how
                    many false positives did that extra suspicion yield? 10,947. An extra two thousand perfectly healthy
                    women were flagged for a disease they didn’t have, and potentially exposed to treatment they didn’t
                    need.  The  highly  trained  radiologists  were  better  at  finding  tumors  not  because  they  were  more
                    accurate. They were better because they were more suspicious. They saw cancer everywhere.
                    If you are a woman, which group of radiologists would you rather have read your mammogram?
                    Are you more concerned about the tiny chance that you’ll have a cancer that will be missed, or the
                    much larger probability that you’ll be diagnosed with a cancer you don’t have? There’s no right or
                    wrong answer to that question. Different people have different attitudes toward their own health,
                    and  toward  risk.  What’s  crucial,  though,  is  the  lesson  those  numbers  teach  us  about  haystack
                    searches. Looking for something rare comes with a price.
   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185