This business story checked some of our boxes, but fell short on the key criteria that we think readers needed in this discussion of new Alzheimer’s drugs.
A poor-quality news release spawned weak coverage from the CBC, which is paraphrased here by Fox with even less context and nuance. Failure on many levels.
How fast should you run to live longer? This story provides clear answer based on the best available evidence.
The tone of this story is appropriately calibrated to the preliminary nature of the evidence on offer, with good discussion of study limitations.
This was a weak, incomplete report about a preliminary study of a saliva test to identify Alzheimer’s disease.
Going beyond the individual stories of the women whose cancers were detected by prenatal testing, this WSJ piece explores the underlying study data as well as the ethical and social issues raised by the research.
The story about one woman’s experience packed an emotional punch, but lacked details and context that would have made it more useful and informative for readers.
Great explanation of costs, risks, and benefits. We would have liked to have seen a deeper examination of the quality of the evidence and more voices from outside the study.