  Bayes' Theorem imposes inevitable limitations on the accuracy of screening
tests by tying the test's predictive value to the disease prevalence. The
aforementioned limitation is independent of the adequacy and make-up of the
test and thus implies inherent Bayesian limitations to the screening process
itself. As per the WHO's $Wilson-Jungner$ criteria, one of the prerequisite
steps before undertaking screening is to ensure that a treatment for the
condition screened exists. However, in so doing, a paradox, henceforth termed
the screening paradox, ensues. If a disease process is screened for and
subsequently treated, its prevalence would drop in the population, which as per
Bayes' theorem, would make the tests' predictive value drop in return. Put
another way, a very powerful screening test would, by performing and succeeding
at the very task it was developed to do, paradoxically reduce its ability to
correctly identify individuals with the disease it screens for in the future.
Where $J$ is Youden's statistic (sensitivity [$a$] + specificity [$b$] - 1),
and $\phi$ is the prevalence, the ratio of positive predictive values at
subsequent time $k$, $\rho(\phi_{k})$, over the original $\rho(\phi_{0})$ at
$t_0$ is given by:
  $\zeta(\phi_{0},k) = \frac{\rho(\phi_{k})}{\rho(\phi_{0})}
=\frac{\phi_k(1-b)+J\phi_0\phi_k}{\phi_0(1-b)+J\phi_0\phi_k}$
  In this manuscript, we explore the mathematical model which formalizes said
screening paradox and explore its implications for population level screening
programs. In particular, we define the number of positive test iterations (PTI)
needed to reverse the effects of the paradox as follows:
  $n_{i\phi_e}=\left\lceil\frac{ln\left[\frac{\omega\phi_e\phi_k-\omega\phi_e}{\omega\phi_e\phi_k-\phi_k}\right]}{2ln\omega}\right\rceil$
  where $\omega$ is the square root of the positive likelihood ratio (LR+).
