ArticlePloS one2025
Adaptive reference ranges: From A to Z.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical reference ranges are fundamental in medical diagnostics, offering critical benchmarks for interpreting laboratory test results. Adaptive reference ranges, in particular, are essential for personalised monitoring, as they enable the detection of abnormal values by accounting for individual variability over time. This paper compares two key approaches for generating adaptive reference ranges: the Z-score method and the linear mixed-effects modelling framework. Through simulation studies and real data applications, we provide practical insights into selecting the most appropriate methods for adaptive monitoring in personalised medicine and sport science. Our findings highlight the trade-offs between these approaches, with the Z-score method favouring specificity, while the linear mixed-effects model prioritises sensitivity and offers greater flexibility by incorporating population-level data, accommodating covariates, and effectively handling missing data.
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.