The other way to look at it is to compare infrared to the current modalities. For example, MRI which provides very sophisticated images, picks up 96% of brain injuries including blood clots. However, this is a very expensive test and is time consuming. In my hospital, I can get a STAT MRI and a radiologist's report in 1-2 hours. If it's after hours, a team has to be called in to do the test and then you can add at least another 45 minutes. Infrared testing on the other hand is a bedside test that can be done very quickly and inexpensively. From a general perspective, 98% is not just adequate it is much better than most tests used in medicine. An EKG that is done for heart attacks for example can miss up to 50% and most people are relieved when they are told that the EKG is normal. 98% accuracy is almost unheard of in medical testing. The term accuracy includes the effects of false negatives and false positives so 98% accurate does not necessarily mean that 2% of the true positives are missed, the test could be picking up all the true positives but also some false positives (it overcalls the number of abnormal test results). Additionally, a test that is 98% accurate does not mean that 2% of the people die unless of course you are referring to a uniformally fatal disease of which blood clots on the brain do not belong. A subdural hematoma is one type of blood clot on the brain and its mortality is about 60%. Additionally, if you think about it, the 2% of blood clots that are going to be missed (let's say the miss rate is 2%) will be the smallest 2% of the blood clots and therefore the least lethal. Yes, size does matter when it comes to blood clots on the brain.