Explore

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Values & turf — what this means

A trade-off or turf question that more data alone won't settle — it turns on risk tolerance, cost, or which specialty owns the decision.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (9 vs 3 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 28 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (43 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Jan 2024).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (2 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Evidence gap — what this means

The answer is genuinely unknown and a trial or readout is still pending. New data we don't have yet will settle it.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (13 vs 1 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 7 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (38 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Jul 2022).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (2 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Coordination gap — what this means

The answer is roughly known, but everyday practice and guidelines lag behind the evidence. The fight is about adoption, not the science.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (11 vs 1 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 58 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (98 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Apr 2024).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (3 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Coordination gap — what this means

The answer is roughly known, but everyday practice and guidelines lag behind the evidence. The fight is about adoption, not the science.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (1 vs 4 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 11 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (44 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Apr 2024).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (2 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Evidence gap — what this means

The answer is genuinely unknown and a trial or readout is still pending. New data we don't have yet will settle it.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (9 vs 1 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 9 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (43 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Sep 2021).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (2 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Coordination gap — what this means

The answer is roughly known, but everyday practice and guidelines lag behind the evidence. The fight is about adoption, not the science.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (7 vs 2 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (24 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Aug 2025).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (5 weeks).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Evidence gap — what this means

The answer is genuinely unknown and a trial or readout is still pending. New data we don't have yet will settle it.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (6 vs 3 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 8 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (26 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Jan 2025).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (2 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Values & turf — what this means

A trade-off or turf question that more data alone won't settle — it turns on risk tolerance, cost, or which specialty owns the decision.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (5 vs 5 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 10 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (40 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Jan 2022).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (2 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Values & turf — what this means

A trade-off or turf question that more data alone won't settle — it turns on risk tolerance, cost, or which specialty owns the decision.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (6 vs 5 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 15 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (34 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Apr 2024).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (2 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Values & turf — what this means

A trade-off or turf question that more data alone won't settle — it turns on risk tolerance, cost, or which specialty owns the decision.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (9 vs 3 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 1 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (17 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Oct 2025).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (2 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.

Movement — vs the previous scan

The board re-ranks after every scan. This chip is measured bookkeeping, not a model’s opinion:

• ▲ / ▼ — places climbed or dropped since the last scan.
• NEW — first appearance on the board.
• — — held its position.

Positions only swap when a debate’s heat moves decisively; small wobbles never reshuffle the board.

Evidence gap — what this means

The answer is genuinely unknown and a trial or readout is still pending. New data we don't have yet will settle it.

The type sets how the debate is framed below — an evidence gap leads with the pending trial, a coordination gap with the two camps, a values & turf split with the trade-off.

Patient reach — how many this affects

A coarse sense of how big the affected patient population is — from a small subspecialty group (“Few patients”) up to millions in routine practice (“Millions of patients”).

It’s a magnitude band the model sets from the clinical context, not a counted total — we never show a fabricated patient number. This is a display signal and doesn’t change the heat score.

Expert split — who’s on record

The tally of named experts we found publicly taking each side (6 vs 1 here). The bar shows how that lean divides between the two camps — the grey middle is the 2 on record whose position doesn’t map cleanly onto either camp. We never force a named clinician into a side.

This is who we found on the record — a snapshot, not a full poll of the field. The measured split will come from cardiologists voting on Synapse.

Sources — the evidence behind it

How many distinct sources we linked for this debate (8 sources here) — journals, guidelines, FDA actions, preprints, news, and posts on X. More bars mean deeper coverage.

Open “The evidence” below to see each one. Counts and quotes are scan-reported and link to their primary source — not yet independently verified.

Two clocks: active since vs. on the board

These measure different things, so the card keeps them apart:

• Active sincewhen the real-world debate became active, from the earliest dated source we found (Sep 2024).
• On the boardhow long the question has been live on Synapse (2 mo).

A debate can be contested for years but new to the board — or brand-new science that’s only days old.