Not at all. From a herd viewpoint it is very useful to be able to identify risk and assess its' probability and cost. It is also useful to know just how accurate the measuring stick is for that risk. Also, resource allocation decisions by insurance companies, health authorities and governments are aided by population wide studies.

On the other hand unless a specific test is 100% accurate the best it can do for an individual is give probability. Where the likely individual falls on the probability line is a matter of judgement in light of other known factors.

It is just a matter of knowing the purpose of the study and the associated metrics. This study and associated test were for herd resource allocation, not individual benefit.