Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.

Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

One thing that is still open after anders_CPH’s answer:

How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?

BiostatsBrad said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.