ArticlePloS one2021
A comparison of methods to generate adaptive reference ranges in longitudinal monitoring.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Routine Blood Tests to Metabolomics: A Contextual Framework for Interpreting Biomarkers of Training Load, Recovery, and Metabolic Stress in Athletes.Metabolites · 2026Review
- Reference intervals reimagined with IRIS for earlier detection and better disease monitoring.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Adaptive reference ranges: From A to Z.PloS one · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular biomarkers: exploring troponin and BNP applications in conditions related to carbon monoxide exposure.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Review
- Stress Monitoring Using Wearable Sensors: A Pilot Study and Stress-Predict Dataset.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a clinical setting, biomarkers are typically measured and evaluated as biological indicators of a physiological state. Population based reference ranges, known as 'static' or 'normal' reference ranges, are often used as a tool to classify a biomarker value for an individual as typical or atypical. However, these ranges may not be informative to a particular individual when considering changes in a biomarker over time since each observation is assessed in isolation and against the same reference limits. To allow early detection of unusual physiological changes, adaptation of static reference ranges is required that incorporates within-individual variability of biomarkers arising from longitudinal monitoring in addition to between-individual variability. To overcome this issue, methods for generating individualised reference ranges are proposed within a Bayesian framework which adapts successively whenever a new measurement is recorded for the individual. This new Bayesian approach also allows the within-individual variability to differ for each individual, compared to other less flexible approaches. However, the Bayesian approach usually comes with a high computational cost, especially for individuals with a large number of observations, that diminishes its applicability. This difficulty suggests that a computational approximation may be required. Thus, methods for generating individualised adaptive ranges by the use of a time-efficient approximate Expectation-Maximisation (EM) algorithm will be presented which relies only on a few sufficient statistics at the individual level.
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.