ArticlePloS one2020
Commonly used clinical chemistry tests as mortality predictors: Results from two large cohort studies.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- STREAM: A data-driven framework for physiological state monitoring in ICU patients.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Determinants of functional burden pleiotropy and gene dosage responses across human traits.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Multimodal risk profiles reveal shared and disease-specific risks of major non-communicable diseases: a prospective cohort study of 42,666 individuals.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Review Article: Albumin and Its Role in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: The Old, the New, and the Future.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Review
- Target Values for 25-Hydroxy and 1,25-Dihydroxy Vitamin D Based on Their Associations with Inflammation and Calcium-Phosphate Metabolism.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Association of blood urea nitrogen with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in hyperlipidemia: NHANES 1999-2018.Lipids in health and disease · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a blood biomarker score for predicting mortality risk in the general population.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Association between total bilirubin and bone mineral density level in adolescents.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe normal ranges for clinical chemistry tests are usually defined by cut-offs given by the distribution in healthy individuals. This approach does however not indicate if individuals outside the normal range are more prone to disease.
methodsWe studied the associations and risk prediction of 11 plasma and serum biomarkers with all-cause mortality in two population-based cohorts: a Swedish cohort (X69) initiated in 1969, and the UK Biobank (UKB) initiated in 2006-2010, with up to 48- and 9-years follow-up, respectively.
resultsIn X69 and in UKB, 18,529 and 425,264 individuals were investigated, respectively. During the follow-up time, 14,475 deaths occurred in X69 and 17,116 in UKB. All evaluated tests were associated with mortality in X69 (P<0.0001, except bilirubin P<0.005). For calcium, blood urea nitrogen, bilirubin, hematocrit, uric acid, and iron, U-shaped associations were seen (P<0.0001). For leukocyte count, gamma-glutamyl transferase, alkaline phosphatases and lactate dehydrogenase, linear positive associations were seen, while for albumin the association was negative. Similar associations were seen in UKB. Addition of all biomarkers to a model with classical risk factors improved mortality prediction (delta C-statistics: +0.009 in X69 and +0.023 in UKB, P<0.00001 in both cohorts).
conclusionsCommonly used clinical chemistry tests were associated with all-cause mortality both in the medium- and long-term perspective, and improved mortality prediction beyond classical risk factors. Since both linear and U-shaped relationships were found, we propose to define the normal range of a clinical chemistry test based on its association with mortality, rather than from the distribution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.