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.
a CT angiogram which in its first phase uh when it's run without contrast which it usually is you have the opportunity to potentially see calcifications and then once the contrast is injected you get a higher resolution image uh that shows more anatomic detail of the Lumen
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.
in my experience Tom you have to have a reasonable amount of soft plaque non-calcified soft plaque to show that suggesting that there's probably still quite a bit of damage that could occur before you would see anything on a CTA
if you want to go to a level above the CAC then the CTA is valuable but now you're experiencing more radiation and you also run the risk um of requiring uh intravenous die or contrast which again is not a major risk but it's it's nonzero