Rhonda Patrick· PhD
but a closer look at the data showed that if you looked at erpr negative breast cancers stage one stage two sensitivity was 75 to 80% it was only in the triple positive erpr positive
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.
but a closer look at the data showed that if you looked at erpr negative breast cancers stage one stage two sensitivity was 75 to 80% it was only in the triple positive erpr positive
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.
at first glance the sensitivity of the Grail test for breast cancer is quite low the specificity is very high for Grail by the way meaning if you don't have cancer it is very likely to tell you you don't have cancer the sensitivity is quite low meaning if you have cancer it could miss it and it's been tuned that way so the algorithm has been tuned for a very high specificity a low sensitivity but if you look at breast cancer overall sensitivity it's about 20% for stage one stage two