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 we probably end up with in any of these tests is a way of stratifying populations based on their genetic risk of getting different diseases and it's only within each of those cohorts of relative risk that we can consider the importance or usefulness of a screening test like a liquid biopsy because it's utility to each person depends upon the extent to which that person is already at risk of the disease you're surveilling
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.