ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2025
The impact of pathological fluctuations versus biological variation on the interpretation of laboratory values.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The current criterion used to determine whether the reference interval (RI) can be used for interpretation is based on the index of individuality (II), estimated using biological variation (BV). We hypothesized that pathological variation (PV), the shift between healthy and unhealthy states, varies across biomarkers and may be considered for interpretation with BV. We explored how jointly considering PV and BV impacts the clinical interpretation (diagnostic sensitivity and specificity) of RIs. Methods: We propose the index of pathology (IP), a ratio of within-to between-subject coefficients of variation that jointly considers PV and BV. Using a large EHR database from a tertiary care center, we obtained IP estimates for 19 laboratory tests. As a means of comparison, the II was obtained from the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) BV database. PV impact was analyzed using the absolute difference between IP and II (Δ Results: 798,800 observations from 17,082 adult patients were analyzed. For most biomarkers, the IP (mean = 1.99, range = 0.55-8.03) differed from the II (mean = 0.54, range = 0.27-0.86). Lowest IPs were for creatinine (IP = 0.55, Δ Conclusion: Differences between variational estimates that only account for healthy states (II-BV) and those that consider healthy and unhealthy states (IP-BV + PV) vary widely among biomarkers, highlighting the differential impact of PV on their interpretation. For biomarkers where IP is high, the RI may be useful to identify unhealthy individuals.
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.