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.
one of the other things that becomes actually very very powerful in the mammogram is to actually use comparison over time so that's why they recommend screening intervals of either one or two years and it's a matter of academic debate and because if you actually have like a mammogram taken and then let's say two years later you do another one it's actually far more sensitive to see that subtle change over time than it is to actually look at an individual mammogram on its own
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.
one of the other things that becomes actually very very powerful in the mammogram is to actually use comparison over time so that's why they recommend screening intervals of either one or two years