Differences in prevalence arising from reference values for physiological and laboratory measurements used in studies of Tibetan highlanders and differences in study populations between the two studies.

We conducted an epidemiological study of Tibetan highlanders in Tsarang Village, Mustang District, Nepal, and reported the findings in Arima et al. (Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 43:25, 2024). Subsequently, Sienna R. Craig and colleagues, who have conducted long-term research in the same region, published a commentary on our study, providing an opportunity for further scholarly discussion. In their commentary, Craig et al. highlighted differences between our study and theirs in the reference values used for disease classification, as well as the limited explanation provided in our article regarding the rationale for selecting these values. They further noted that these differences may have contributed to discrepancies in the summary and interpretation of population health indicators between the two studies. In this commentary, we seek to clarify the background and rationale underlying the reference values and analytical choices adopted in our study, and to discuss how differences in study design and population characteristics may influence prevalence estimates and interpretations of health status. Through this discussion, we aim to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of health assessment among Tibetan highlanders living at high altitude.