The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
So if this person shows up with an APO of 150, maybe a reasonable goal for them is 60. um versus if this person shows up with an APO of 150 and they have coronary arteries that are littered with plaque at which point the goal is 30.
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.
The way I think about it is there's a two 2 by two which is age versus finding positive or negative I think CT angiograms are mostly helpful when they have a positive finding in a young person or a negative finding in an old person that's where it can really cause you to act differently
we said let's let the CTA decide that if the CTA comes back clean as a whistle we're going to treat you to like an apob of 60 which is still aggressive by most people's standards by our standards at sort of middle of the road