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.
it's looking and it's not a biomarker it's actually looking at damage but in a sense it's telling you that the damage has already been done which may be a predictor of future risk correct and that's one of my big pet peeves is when people talk about a calcium score like they talk about a biomarker it is not a biomarker it is a backwards looking piece of evidence that you have disease and that damage has already occurred to the artery
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.