3 ms·
5% seems a bit high, but we are nearly there. https://www.facs.org/for-medical-professionals/news-publications/news-and-articles/acs-brief/may-13-2025-issue/ct
by lostlogin 9mo ago
5% seems a bit high, but we are nearly there.
https://www.facs.org/for-medical-professionals/news-publications/news-and-articles/acs-brief/may-13-2025-issue/ct-imaging-increases-lifetime-cancer-risks/ https://www.facs.org/for-medical-professionals/news-publicat...
- ErroneousBosh 9mo agoI think they're reading too much into it. How are they determining "this cancer was caused by the CT scan" versus "this cancer was caused by the cancer we were originally looking for that was there all along"?
- lostlogin 9mo agoRadiation doesn’t label the cancers it causes. Other than comparing population groups, what method do we have?
- ErroneousBosh 9mo agoWell, you could work backwards and look at your assumptions. Why is "We think this person has cancer so we gave them a CT scan and look! Now they've got cancer! It must be because of the CT scan!" the conclusion to jump to?
- azan_ 9mo agoPlease just read this article - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2832778 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... It's funny that you instantly assumed that authors are stupid and did not think about this obvious pitfall. It's extra funny that you also accuse them of jumping to conclusion without actually reading the article.
- ErroneousBosh 9mo agoI've read it. It's so comically unscientific.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- azan_ 8mo agoWhat's unscientific in that?