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.
a glein 7 as you said again the Gleason score is a gleon sum and it tells how much pattern three and how much pattern four do you have so it is a blended Scotch not a single malt or whatever they call it okay and the blend is what matters the most how much pattern four you have particularly is the most important factor
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.
the pathologist will score how abnormally developed that duct or that branch is and that score is what ends up being the gleon and score now the pathologist tells us if you have a cancer what is the individual Branch look like what's the pattern that would be the gleon pattern and then the patterns today are pattern three pattern four and pattern five
so the common ones would be 3 + 3 equal six that means that the pathologist only saw abnormal glandular patterns that were pattern three
so the common ones would be 3 + 3 equal 6 that means that the pathologist only saw abnormal glandular patterns that were pattern three