Peter Attia· MD
so in our study from uh a year or two ago we uh within stage one we could get to about twenty percent uh sensitivity for uh including in stage one a uh non-small cell lung cancer in a validation cohort
Loading…
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 in our study from uh a year or two ago we uh within stage one we could get to about twenty percent uh sensitivity for uh including in stage one a uh non-small cell lung cancer in a validation cohort
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 and what was the uh specificity the specificity was ninety nine ninety eight nine ninety 98 i think it was tuned into that in that analysis 98
Whole-body MRI screening in healthy adults produces more incidentaloma harm than cancer-mortality benefit.
Starting colonoscopy screening at 45 (vs 50) prevents enough early-onset cancers to justify the population cost.
Multi-cancer liquid-biopsy tests like Galleri detect early cancers at a stage that meaningfully improves survival.