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.
It depends on the age. If there's a 20-year-old, likely between 0 and 1. If there's a 40-year-old, likely between 1 and 3. And then if there's an 80-year-old, it would not be abnormal to have a PSA of 5 and have that be well within the reference range.
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.
So a normal PSA for a 40-year-old is around 0.5 to 0.6 nanograms per ml. For a 50 year old, normal meaning this is the median for all the population. For a 50 year old, it's one. And so it kind of goes up stepwise by decade.
So if you're a younger person, if your PSA is more than 2.5, that's usually considered to be abnormal and you may need further workup. You don't need a biopsy right away these days, in my opinion, but you need further workup.