> except for colorectal screenings where the difference was about 4 months of difference
That sounds, uh, significant. So to clarify, does that mean people gain 4 months on average by getting this screening? Those who get the cancer gain years, and those that don't gain 0, so the average is 4 months?
It also makes me wonder that if some cancers are rare enough to average to 0 months (rounded down) that could still work out to a 1/500 chance of living to 80 vs 40. Long odds it matters, but big difference if it does.
They were testing for some of the most frequent cancers (breast, colorectal, lung cancer (in smokers), prostate), and measuring differences in outcomes down to the day.
Think of what you're saying. If it was so bimodal that the screened people "gained years" while the ones who didn't "gained 0", then how could the average possibly be 4 months?
If we take your theory at face value, on average the screened people would have an 8 month increase.
A very simplistic hypothetical scenario could be, people who get colon cancer die an average of 6-7 years earlier than they would have. And if 5% of the population get colon cancer, then the average gain would be 4 months with screening.
