ScienceGuardians hosts editors too
Secure Environment: Verified contributors only, ensuring meaningful and responsible discussions. Members can stay anonymous while verified, ensuring legitimacy and accountability.
Combatting Misconduct: A fortress against anonymous intimidation and coordinated campaigns, fostering evidence-based dialogue and protecting the academic community.
Resources and Training: Access classified content, participate in enlightening debates, and stay at the forefront of ethical practices.
Hack-Proof Platform: Your privacy is paramount. The identity information of users choosing to remain anonymous is securely stored offline.
Our Commitment:
Integrity and Accountability: Every account verified for credible and responsible engagement.
Inclusivity and Fairness: A platform where all voices in the scientific community are respected.
Support and Collaboration: Helping resolve issues delicately and constructively.
Participant
The discussion around ctDNA assays is compelling, but I’m curious about the disconnect between their high sensitivity/specificity and their failure to improve clinical outcomes. Could the author clarify whether the lack of survival benefit is due to limitations in current intervention strategies post-MRD detection, or are there fundamental challenges in applying lead time information to improve patient outcomes?