I didnt say it would be sold at a chemist. I was comparing it to pregnancy tests because they actually make money. A lot of the traders jumping on here will have no idea about how this works so i said it won't be sold at a chemist because if it could be it would have wide exposure and actually get sales.
Requoteing things doesnt make them more accurate. 87% specificity 90% sensitivity might sound good to day traders trying to pump up stocks but necessarily to scientists. Essentially that means the test may be about 90% accurate. A doctor isnt going to determine whether someone has cancer based on 90% accuracy. This may eventually be used for mass screening but not actually diagnosing ovarian cancer so isnt going to make as much money as you want to hype up for.
DNA tests have a 100% accuracy with the probability being 99.9999% because people can have the same dna at the markers they check. Home pregnancy tests have a 99% accuracy and are still considered unreliable. Being better then the best current test doesn't mean much if that test isn't also widely used.
If you understood how the test worked you would know even if you had a patent on the specific antibody this company uses there is nothing to stop another company developing an even better one. ELISA isn't new science and this company has done something very minor in one part of it. This could have been done by someone doing a PHD.
How about you quote this part too. Looks like they arent quite as confident as you.
"Further studies are planned to demonstrate the use of the BARD1 Ovarian Cancer Test for distinction of benign ovarian lesions and cancer. Additionally, an evaluation of commercial instrument platforms will be undertaken to select the best platform for future clinical validation studies testing large prospective cohorts in a clinical laboratory."
Which is why i said
"likely need to be improved with new evidence in another clinical trial. "
(20min delay)