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.
including ca actually which sometimes in some subset of patients can be a good biomarker if the tumor just pumps out a lot of it and the patient has a decent amount of disease so the total level is significantly higher than what a normal patient would have
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 problem becomes that having low levels of any of those markers does you ca when you when a patient has that you can't know whether that means they have a little bit of cancer in the body or whether it's just that's their baseline what the normal cells are making in their body and that lack of specificity is what it's called meaning you're not so sure when you see it that it's cancer or not cancer was the major achilles heel of the protein-based biomarkers