Bryan Johnson· Author
One caveat of CAC testing is that it does not identify non-calcified (early) plaque and may miss very early CAD. In this setting coronary CT with contrast is necessary, but carries a higer radiation dose.
Loading…
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.
One caveat of CAC testing is that it does not identify non-calcified (early) plaque and may miss very early CAD. In this setting coronary CT with contrast is necessary, but carries a higer radiation dose.
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.
CAC is able to do a better job, but even still there is not way to really assess plaque vulnerability.