Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person. Both are real; they answer different questions and get quoted as if they were the same one.

BethLabQueen said:

Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.

There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.

One concrete data point for the thread. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.