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.
who needs a prostate biopsy somebody who has abnormal blood testing they go on to get an MRI now that's our regular pathway who do we say you don't need an MRI men who have bilateral hip replacements and MRI is effectively useless so we don't do an MRI for those individuals we can calculate PSA density with an ultrasound it's fast it's cheap it's effective
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.
if somebody has profound anxiety and they need general anesthesia for something we'll be nuanced about whether or not we think an MR makist but for the average person 99.5% of people you know you get an MRI