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 I would say from a practical standpoint the more common tool are um ultrasound and vibration methods um that are less expensive that are easier to do in a in a clinic um and there are there's a branded version of this that we typically use called fibroscan
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.
from a practical standpoint the more common tool are ultrasound and vibration methods that are less expensive that are easier to do in a in a clinic and there are there's a branded version of this that we typically use called fibroscan
my takeaway was that the the gold standard was probably magnetic resonance elastography and proton density fat fraction or pdff
the the gold standard was probably uh magnetic resonance elastography and proton density fat fraction or pdff um so you know again that's that's sort of looking at Mr technology um so meaning an MRI to make the diagnosis