Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
Most discussions involve critical reflections on the research's findings, such as mentions of the high false positive rate (~16%) and concerns over unnecessary invasive procedures, demonstrating skepticism and cautious interest. The tone varies from clinical critique to moral concern, guiding the overall moderate engagement and uncertain consensus about the impact of these findings.
Many discussions highlight the limitations and potential harms of whole-body MRI screening, showing skepticism and concern, but some also recognize its potential diagnostic value without full endorsement.
The overall interest appears moderate, with some participants referencing the importance of the research and expressing opinions, but few engaging deeply or seeking more information.
There is some thoughtful critique and debate, especially around false positives and ethical concerns, indicating moderate engagement but not deeply technical or personal involvement.
The discussions seem to influence opinions about the utility and dangers of widespread screening, but the overall consensus and direct impact on policy or practice remain limited.
@petaman3 @KariTikkinen @AleksiReito @NevalainenOlli @markkumyllykan2 Kuvassa asiaan vihkiytymättömille vielä perustelu kritiikille lähteineen: https://t.co/3a0NMCf2uo https://t.co/7YdYkSwP81
that’s not “from” the NIH; PubMed indexes papers in scientific journals and sometimes (eg certain public funding) also co-posts the full text publicly in PubMed Central (this article is published in the Journal of MRI)
@VPrasadMDMPH Full body scans have even more problems: https://t.co/CMWueMfkl1 1. False positives 2. Irrelevant true positives - as you eloquently clarify above 3. False attribution of symptoms to "abnormal" findings, leading to missed diagnoses 4. Static images
@nealkhosla @chrissyfarr The issue is Brandolini's law - prenuvo and other companies prey on patients with a story that sounds good but is scientifically nonsense if you dig deeper. I go into all the reasons why these scans are scientifically unsound in my video here: https://t.co/CMWueMfkl1
@extuhzee We find them to be a very useful advanced cancer diagnostic tool The downsides are: - Cost ($2500, insurances do not cover) - High false positive rate (~16%) - https://t.co/7goRA21WRd @ezrainc @Biograph are good companies that offer them in addition to @prenuvo
@chrissyfarr Hey, I'm a physician with a unique take on healthcare, with a private practice. I did a pretty intense takedown of that full body MRI nonsense, here's a link if you're interested. Love to discuss further. https://t.co/CMWueMfkl1
Full body MRI scans are promoted as early disease detection tools, but they pose challenges such as false positives and misinterpretation of test mathematics. This video explores the limitations and potential harms of…
Doctors often warn against full-body MRI due to incidental findings. This review examines their prevalence, accuracy, and the implications for preventive health, questioning whether these warnings are justified based on…
@astrodanish There has been some research looking at the value of screening MRIs and what people find is that there’s a substantial amount of incidental findings/false positives that require even more invasive workup, making it not really worth it. https://t.co/piWhQ9mErM
@levelsio https://t.co/ZQXsg2hTpy https://t.co/fKOoogwm60 https://t.co/3ZLk290cV6
@KellyMorrisonMN Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature. https://t.co/EPrZ3kjH3m
@eaglzfan1967 @ChrisDJackson Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature - PMC https://t.co/FkdENqWxHP
@ChrisDJackson Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature - PMC https://t.co/FkdENqWxHP Whoops
that’s not “from” the NIH; PubMed indexes papers in scientific journals and sometimes (eg certain public funding) also co-posts the full text publicly in PubMed Central (this article is published in the Journal of MRI)
RT @vitavedahealth: @extuhzee We find them to be a very useful advanced cancer diagnostic tool The downsides are: - Cost ($2500, insurance…
@extuhzee We find them to be a very useful advanced cancer diagnostic tool The downsides are: - Cost ($2500, insurances do not cover) - High false positive rate (~16%) - https://t.co/7goRA21WRd @ezrainc @Biograph are good companies that offer them in addition to @prenuvo
@nealkhosla is a great example of how companies like @prenuvo can fool people by spinning a story that "makes sense" (that's what con artists do), but only on deeper consideration can you see the inherent flaws. 4 Problems with full-body scans: https://t.co/CMWueMfSaz
RT @DrZainHakeem: @VPrasadMDMPH Full body scans have even more problems: https://t.co/CMWueMfkl1 1. False positives 2. Irrelevant true posi…
RT @DrZainHakeem: @VPrasadMDMPH Full body scans have even more problems: https://t.co/CMWueMfkl1 1. False positives 2. Irrelevant true posi…
@VPrasadMDMPH Full body scans have even more problems: https://t.co/CMWueMfkl1 1. False positives 2. Irrelevant true positives - as you eloquently clarify above 3. False attribution of symptoms to "abnormal" findings, leading to missed diagnoses 4. Static images
@nealkhosla @chrissyfarr The issue is Brandolini's law - prenuvo and other companies prey on patients with a story that sounds good but is scientifically nonsense if you dig deeper. I go into all the reasons why these scans are scientifically unsound in my video here: https://t.co/CMWueMfkl1
@chrissyfarr Hey, I'm a physician with a unique take on healthcare, with a private practice. I did a pretty intense takedown of that full body MRI nonsense, here's a link if you're interested. Love to discuss further. https://t.co/CMWueMfkl1
@Mangan150 I also referenced this study in my video on full-body MRIs, and the rampant misunderstanding of this math by people like @PeterAttiaMD and @davidasinclair, let alone the lay public and influencers like @KimKardashian. https://t.co/n6hUSMZqZw
Full body MRI's are a terrible idea. Here's Reason 2/4. Full video here: https://t.co/n6hUSMZYP4 https://t.co/FF9u2CuAqO
Full video here: https://t.co/n6hUSMZqZw
RT @antti_roine: @petaman3 @KariTikkinen @AleksiReito @NevalainenOlli @markkumyllykan2 Kuvassa asiaan vihkiytymättömille vielä perustelu kr…
@petaman3 @KariTikkinen @AleksiReito @NevalainenOlli @markkumyllykan2 Kuvassa asiaan vihkiytymättömille vielä perustelu kritiikille lähteineen: https://t.co/3a0NMCf2uo https://t.co/7YdYkSwP81
@XavierHelgesen @EricPoortinga @cmwilliams99 it’s tortured logic to use anecdotes as a replacement of data. False positive rate 16%, false neg rate 2%. No evidence it saves lives https://t.co/vmuxAFDFSl
RT @researchumcg: Whole-body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature https://t.co/zCRpmqxJpN
Whole-body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature https://t.co/zCRpmqxJpN
RT @researchumcg: New Open Access: Whole-body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature https://t.co/zCRpm…
New Open Access: Whole-body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature https://t.co/zCRpmqxJpN
doi:10.1002/jmri.26736. Petralia G, Zugni F, Summers PE, et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) for cancer screening ...
AR
VL
ES
N
U
P
DA
MM
DM
S
RU