The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
however from a cost standpoint although it's a test i can order it's not covered by any insurance and would cost a patient about four thousand dollars out of pocket so other than doing it you know in the context of a clinical trial it's really not realistic for many of the patients
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
however from a cost standpoint although it's a test i can order it's not covered by any insurance and would cost a patient about four thousand dollars out of pocket so other than doing it you know in the context of a clinical trial it's really not realistic for many of the patients
the other thing I think I'll just say for the sake of completeness is we do have amyloid pet scans these are not something we use clinically um I we've probably done three or four of these in total and they're typically done in a research setting