Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
so again in theory the idea here is well you had a CTA I see a stenosis there it's a 50% % stenosis is it significant or not I can't tell I don't have a pressure transducer in there that I can measure but I can run this algorithm on it and the algorithm will tell me what the pressure drop is so of course question one is how successful is that algorithm I I'm I don't know myself
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.
pressure drop is so of course question one is how successful is that algorithm I I'm I don't know myself um I assume that there was a head-to-head that was done where you had a whole bunch of people that actually had cath that actually had pressure transduction and then concurrently had CTA and then they actually see how predictive they were I I I have to believe that was done right