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.
we have had two patients for whom PSA is high 4k comes back high so these are patients who now have a 20% chance maybe 16 18 20 % chance of having cancer in their prostate or having metastatic cancer over the next act two decades that's basically what the high 4k tells you in the olden days we would have just biopsied them and now we run them through this MRI and the answer is nope that's totally fine right
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.