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.
first of all we know that 15 of zero calcium scores are false negatives anyway if you do a CTA a CT angiogram listener you're going to see a calcification that was missed because the CTA has much finer slices than the CAC or you're going to see soft plaque in fact one series found that I think almost two percent of zero scores on cax actually had hemodynamically significant lesions on CTA
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.
15% of people who have a zero calcium score have a finding on CTA that is either as mine was meaning a calcification that was not picked up or a soft plaque furthermore 2% or maybe it's one and a half% of those people who are deemed with a negative uh CAC have an unstable plaque on CTA
It's also worth pointing out a zero calcium score carries with it an approximate 15% risk of uh being a false negative. Um, I've personally seen, I don't know, 10 cases of zero calcium scores that are not zero.