[adjkant]

While the author may not be well versed or focusing on the stats side, you're missing the human side here I think.

> the tests are inaccurate, when in reality the tests are accurate

If the test make someone consider terminating a pregnancy or even considering it, that's a lot of pain. So for that human, the test is failing its purpose potentially, depending on the value calculation of terminating a viable pregnancy vs the severity of the issue if it comes to term.

For a human, accuracy as you defined it means little to nothing. Usefulness and helpfulness are far better metrics, and such a high false positive rate is clearly causing issues in respect to those, which is what the article is highlighting.

[andreilys]

Usefulness and helpfulness are far better metrics, and such a high false positive rate is clearly causing issues in respect to those

How exactly do you plan on codifying usefulness and helpfulness?

A high false positive rate is not necessarily a bad thing and may instead be the catalyst for additional tests to confirm the first one. The tests accuracy may actually be 100%, which is great because it avoids a child being born with a fatal genetic disease. Would you prefer a high false negative rate that misses these diseases instead?

[halpert]

Or maybe you’re missing the human side of having a child born with a serious genetic defect?

[mcguire]

Is it better to terminate 85 pregnancies which do not have a serious defect in order to catch 15 which do? At what point is it not better to terminate 100% of pregnancies?