This is a bit of a confusing card - not sure the anecdotes like this work? @alexlewis @sabicool thoughts?
@Stapedius the card makes sense and works. To put it into a clinical context. If you are at a skin cancer clinic and you biopsy every lesion you see, you will have 100% sensitivity but very poor specificity
For some reason @sabicool your anecdote makes a lot more sense than the on the street anecdote… but it’s probably me. I just rote learned this before exams so tbh it’s probably good we get some cards applying it to more broader contexts. Will approve.
I think understanding specificity/sensitivity at the extreme ends helps to understand the difference between them.
I wrote it with the ridiculous “walking down the street and saying everyone has cancer” cause I thought it was funny lol. I kinda like the idea that the anki deck has room for a bit of fun and whimsy, obviously not at the expense of good cards, but can understand if that’s not the vibe y’all are going for. @Stapedius @sabicool
@mrvhyte I would suggest that you rewrite this as the current text field as an explanatory example in the extra field. Maybe make the text as:
“a test that identifies everyone {{c1::without::with/without}} a disease has {{c2::100%::…%}} {{c3::specificity::sensitivity/specificity}}”
if you do it this way you must write cards that are formatted identically for 0% specificity, “with” the disease, and all other variations. Otherwise this layout is extremely prone to rote memorisation.
@sabicool @Stapedius i hope you guys agree
I like it @alexlewis edit: actually I’m unsure how to write cards for 0% specificity.
"A test that fails to identify everyone {{c1::without::with/without}} a disease has {{c2::0%::…%}} {{c3::specificity::sensitivity/specificity}}”
Something like that? I’m not sure how easy that is to understand.
@mrvhyte that’s exactly how i’d do it. I think the fact that it’s complicated is good - makes you think