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.
What I'm interested in is when they have looked not at the enormously good R-squared, but at the variations from the R-squared, that's why I said that it's good that the R-squared not so high if you look at adults. The thing there is that, then you can actually ask questions like, "Does the subset of the population that are changing that signature of that group of methylation sites more rapidly than average, do they actually exhibit a greater pathology at a younger age?"
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.