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.
there was a paper a couple years ago that looked at Major cardiovascular trials you know published in the leading journals New England Journal Jama Lancet you know only 10 percent of trial leaderships midis were women and more than half about 56 of these trial leadership committees had no female representation on the trial
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.
for example we did this for afib and we showed that for every one percent increase in women authors there was a 19 higher enrollment of women participants in the trials