ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Diagnosis Based on Population Data versus Personalized Data: The Evolving Paradigm in Laboratory Medicine.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Revolutionizing personalized medicine using artificial intelligence: a meta-analysis of predictive diagnostics and their impacts on drug development.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Applications and challenges of biomarker-based predictive models in proactive health management.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- Directional drift in biologically meaningful vector planes: A proposed geometric framework for early detection of subthreshold disease.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Future of Tumor Markers: Advancing Early Malignancy Detection Through Omics Technologies, Continuous Monitoring, and Personalized Reference Intervals.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Are Your Laboratory Data Reproducible? The Critical Role of Imprecision from Replicate Measurements to Clinical Decision-making.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of diseases is a complex process involving the integration of multiple parameters obtained from various sources, including laboratory findings. The interpretation of laboratory data is inherently comparative, necessitating reliable references for accurate assessment. Different types of references, such as reference intervals, decision limits, action limits, and reference change values, are essential tools in the interpretation of laboratory data. Although these references are used to interpret individual laboratory data, they are typically derived from population data, which raises concerns about their reliability and consequently the accuracy of interpretation of individuals' laboratory data. The accuracy of diagnosis is critical to all subsequent steps in medical practice, making the estimate of reliable references a priority. For more precise interpretation, references should ideally be derived from an individual's own data rather than from population averages. This manuscript summarizes the current sources of references used in laboratory data interpretation, examines the references themselves, and discusses the transition from population-based laboratory medicine to personalized laboratory medicine.
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.