Pregnancy tests are 99% accurate in the lab, 75% accurate in the wild due to misreads- mistakes which are highly dependant on education and socioeconomic status. No, it is not stupid or wasteful to use a hardware interface to help women with this. archive.is/20081206110632/ar…
Arch Fam Med -- Diagnostic Efficiency of Home Pregnancy Test Kits: A …
archived 9 Jan 2014 07:07:16 UTCarchive.is
I saw a tweet recently that I wanted to confirm. Sadly I can't find it right now, but it was about digital pregnancy tests. So, I went out and grabbed a 2-pack for 7 dollars: let's tear it down!Show this thread
Terrified teenage girls fumbling in public bathrooms with pregnancy tests because they are scared their parents will find out they are sexually active and murder them don't read instructions carefully. White college-educated women: "Hur hur hur words are for stupid people".
IF you make that second line of antibodies in the shape of a YES, you'd run into issue that (imagining it flows from bottom to top) the first line of the E would capture all the antibodies, leaving non. The E would look like a _.
Putting less antibodies on the E sound doable in practice, but you'd risk loosing sensitivity. Also the extra space of having to write something would risk causing issues with the positive control (that second line that you see on the test).
9:03 AM · Sep 4, 2020