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.
for example a calcium score of 6 if you are 35 to 40 years old would put you at the 75th to 90th percentile that even though that is a tiny tiny tiny burden of calcium that's a significant problem a calcium score of 6 if you were 80 years old means you have no calcium
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.
and when you're talking about the percentiles I think I've seen like Mesa the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis says they have a calculator I think as well that you can you can look at your risk and you can just like you're talking about that you could have a score of five and that would denote high risk depending on what you plug in for your age what your age actually is compared to somebody older
the frequency of a positive cornea calcium goes up as we age and so does the risk of disease so by the time a man is 60 all american men are at high risk according to your current guidelines women are five to ten years later