What is the percentage of false positives reduced with the methods used by Screena?

Many screening vendors claim they deliver 90% fewer false positives. Others 70% or 95%. Without ever putting such figures in context. How many data points have been used? Was the data of good quality? How many records in total were screened? Was there any impact measured on false negatives? What was the method used to determine true positives vs. false positives? Were the results consistently reviewed based on a 4-eye control principle? Etc.

In other words, without any contextual element, these figures have little to no scientific value. It also raises the question: if almost every vendor can reduce false positives in dramatic proportions, then why does screening remain such a critical problem for so many organizations worldwide today?

Therefore, we at Screena are very cautious and humble before communicating any percentage in terms of false positives reduced. In our view, even one-digit incremental gains in screening quality can have a massive impact on large-scale operations. And that’s precisely what our clients observe using our technology.

Last updated