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.
the normal range RDW goes up to at least 15 I think 14 point 5 to 15 maybe and so once you're at the top of that you're still you know you know it's associated with with dramatically elevated risk of it of a number of diseases
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.
that's probably why the RDW is so predictive is one of the best predictors of long-term health and you'll get an RT w on a CBC so you're on a complete blood count with a DIF you'll get an RT W
r dw or red cell distribution width is is basically a measure of how variable your red blood cells are in size and it's incredibly tightly linked to all cause mortality
for each percent that you're RDW goes above about 12.5 you increase your risk of all-cause mortality by by one time so I thirst it it's like doubled at thirteen point five and then trip order fourteen point five and just keeps on going up and up and up
suggesting that the higher the RDW there may be a problem
if you have a high percent distribution you've got it's it's a remarkable predictor of all kinds of adverse outcomes independent of everything else
the red cell distribution width is just a metric that comes out whenever you do a complete blood count a cbc on a patient they get their hemoglobin the hermatocrit the mean cell volume of the red cells and they get this thing called rdw red cell distribution width which is really just how how varied are the red cell sizes in your blood