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.
if you look at breast cancer overall sensitivity it's about 20% for stage one stage two which seems kind of abysmal meaning if you have a breast cancer that's early stage stage one stage two there's only like a 20% chance it'll show up on the Grail test
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.
if you looked at erpr negative breast cancers stage one stage two sensitivity was 75 to 80% it was only in the triple positive erpr positive herun new positive that the sensitivity specificity are so low
the more indolent a breast cancer is the less likely the Grail test picks it up at an early stage but the more aggressive it is the more lik it is to pick it up at an early stage
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.