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.
That's in form So there you have the way I describe it is it's a two by two and there's only two quadrants that are interesting to me young people meaning someone under say 45 or 50 who has calcification and Old people and I'm sorry to use the term old but older folks call it someone over 70 who has no calcification if you're in those categories Bayes' theorem is lighting up like ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.
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.
calcium scans are are almost exclusively out of pocket I would say 90 Plus % of them are paid for by patients themselves but again as you said ear so inexpensive it's a couple hundred bucks
one of the nice things about a calcium score is it's very very low in radiation I mean it's really right you know even ctas are now low we'll talk about that but but the the calcium skin is a really low radiation and a very inexpensive tool as well uh there are you know places that are doing these scans for a couple hundred dollars uh nowaday
it's a zero risk lowcost procedure that at least at the population level as you say has really great Insight especially the first time it's done right
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 and we can talk about which contexts I think are most valuable it's certainly not everybody