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.
so we begin to use the kind of free PSAs and the free PSA ratios and all those things when PSAs have crossed over certain threshold right because yeah typically a lab if you if your PSA is one uh we can't even get a lab to check a free PSA that's right because we know if your P if you're screening someone and your PSA is one then the chances you the probability of a prostate cancer that's lethal is incredibly low right
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.
but in general the idea is well if your PSA is below two the probability you have a lethal prostate cancer is you know less than one in a million so we don't have to worry about that individual and we really want to use the percent free PSA to discriminate y individuals who have elevated PSAs and having to discriminate between elevated because of BPH and elevated because of a cancer