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.
I had my first calcium scan when I was 35 and I had to beg borrow steel to get it done because everyone was like why does a 35-year-old want to do this but I something I just felt something was wrong given my family history
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.
I did a full 180 on these you know when I first started practicing as an independent cardiologist back in the early 2000s I would get patients showing up with these calcium scans and I really sort of wanted to make them go away I thought they were annoying and I didn't know what to do with them and it it really has been a full 180 I do find Value obviously there's epidemiologic value in understanding the risk of different populations uh but I do find that there is value in in many contexts and even in individual patients