100 Introduction - Optimal Functional Ranges for Blood and Urine Tests
Optimal Functional Ranges for Blood and Urine Tests: A Shift from Traditional Norms
The traditional normal lab ranges for blood and urine tests are established based on population statistics, providing a broad range of values considered "normal" for a healthy population. However, optimal functional ranges differ from these traditional norms by focusing on individualized, dynamic, and context-specific criteria that enhance diagnostic accuracy and health outcomes. This shift is driven by advancements in personalized medicine, the integration of biological variations, and the consideration of external factors influencing biomarker levels.
The Limitations of Traditional Normal Lab Ranges
Traditional reference intervals are derived from population data, often failing to account for individual variations such as genetic, lifestyle, and physiological differences. These broad ranges may not accurately reflect the optimal functional ranges for specific patients, potentially leading to misclassification of results and less precise clinical decisions [2] [4].
The Emergence of Personalized Reference Intervals (prRIs)
Personalized reference intervals (prRIs) are tailored to individual patients, incorporating their unique biological variations. These intervals are calculated using a patient's previous test results obtained during a steady-state situation, combined with estimates of analytical and biological variation. prRIs provide a more specific and accurate reference for interpreting laboratory data, reducing the limitations of population-based intervals [5] [20].
The Role of Physiological and Pathophysiological Insights
Functional reference limits describe key changes in physiological relationships between biomarkers, offering insights into health and disease states. These limits are mathematically modeled from the curvature of physiological functions, providing a more nuanced interpretation of laboratory results. By focusing on physiological relationships, functional ranges enhance the interpretation of test results beyond traditional statistical boundaries [1].
The Impact of Biological Variations and Lifestyle Factors
Biological variations, such as circadian rhythms and random fluctuations, significantly influence biomarker levels. Traditional reference intervals often overlook these variations, leading to potential misinterpretations. Advanced models now incorporate lifestyle factors, such as physical activity and sleep, to predict personalized optimal ranges, improving the accuracy of disease risk prediction and health monitoring [8] [9].
Stratification by Demographic Factors
Optimal functional ranges are increasingly stratified by demographic factors such as age, sex, and ethnicity. For example, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels vary significantly across populations, necessitating personalized reference ranges to avoid inappropriate management decisions. Similarly, laboratory results stratified by sex and ethnicity have been shown to better correlate with postoperative outcomes, highlighting the importance of tailored reference intervals [10] [15] [16].
The Integration of Real-World Data and Advanced Statistical Methods
The development of next-generation reference interval models leverages real-world data and computational methods to establish continuous, age- and sex-specific reference intervals. These models reduce errors in result interpretation by automatically selecting appropriate ranges based on patient demographics. Additionally, multivariate reference interval methods, such as those using Mahalanobis distance, enhance accuracy by considering multiple biomarkers simultaneously [17] [19].
The Future of Optimal Functional Ranges
The future of optimal functional ranges lies in personalized and dynamic models that integrate individual data, lifestyle factors, and advanced statistical techniques. These models will enable earlier disease detection, more timely interventions, and a shift towards precision medicine. By moving beyond traditional population-based norms, optimal functional ranges will enhance the accuracy and relevance of laboratory test interpretations, ultimately improving patient outcomes [6] [18].
Conclusion
Optimal functional ranges for blood and urine tests differ from traditional normal lab ranges by incorporating individualized, dynamic, and context-specific criteria. These ranges enhance diagnostic accuracy and health outcomes by accounting for biological variations, lifestyle factors, and demographic differences. The integration of personalized reference intervals, advanced statistical methods, and real-world data marks a significant shift towards more precise and effective laboratory medicine.
Table: Comparison of Traditional and Optimal Functional Ranges
| Aspect | Traditional Normal Lab Ranges | Optimal Functional Ranges |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Derived from population statistics, providing a broad range of values considered "normal" for a healthy population. | Tailored to individual patients, incorporating biological variations and lifestyle factors. |
| Diagnostic Accuracy | May lead to misclassification of results due to overlooking individual variations. | Enhances accuracy by considering physiological relationships and dynamic factors. |
| Health Outcomes | Less precise clinical decisions, potentially leading to over- or underdiagnosis. | Improves health outcomes through earlier disease detection and more timely interventions. |
| Incorporation of Variations | Often overlooks biological variations, such as circadian rhythms and random fluctuations. | Accounts for biological variations and lifestyle factors, providing more nuanced interpretations. |
| Stratification | Typically not stratified by demographic factors like age, sex, and ethnicity. | Stratified by demographic factors, improving the correlation with clinical outcomes. |
| Integration of Data | Limited integration of real-world data and advanced statistical methods. | Leverages real-world data and computational methods to establish continuous, dynamic models. |
This table highlights the key differences between traditional normal lab ranges and optimal functional ranges, emphasizing the latter's focus on individualization, accuracy, and integration of advanced data analysis techniques.
- Chuah, T. Y., Lim, C. Y., Tan, R. Z., Pratumvinit, B., Loh, T. P., Vasikaran, S. D., & Markus, C. (2023). Functional Reference Limits: Describing Physiological Relationships and Determination of Physiological Limits for Enhanced Interpretation of Laboratory Results. Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 43(5), 408–417. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2023.43.5.408
- Coskun, A., & Lippi, G. (2024). The impact of physiological variations on personalized reference intervals and decision limits: an in-depth analysis. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0009
- Coskun, A., Sandberg, S., Unsal, I., Cavusoglu, C., Serteser, M., Kilercik, M., & Aarsand, A. K. (2023). Personalized and Population-Based Reference Intervals for 48 Common Clinical Chemistry and Hematology Measurands: A Comparative Study. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvad113
- Coşkun, A. (2024). Diagnosis Based on Population Data versus Personalized Data: The Evolving Paradigm in Laboratory Medicine. Diagnostics, 14(19), 2135. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14192135
- Coskun, A., Sandberg, S., Unsal, I., Serteser, M., & Aarsand, A. K. (2022). Personalized reference intervals: from theory to practice. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 59(7), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2022.2070905
- Doyle, K., & Bunch, D. R. (2023). Reference intervals: past, present, and future. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2023.2196746
- Muse, V. B., Aguayo-Orozco, A., Balaganeshan, S., & Brunak, S. (2022). Population-wide analysis of laboratory tests to assess seasonal variation and the relevance of temporal reference interval modification. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.17.22282394
- Heydari, A. A., Rezaei, N., Prieto, J. L., Patel, S., & Metwally, A. A. (2024). Lifestyle-Informed Personalized Blood Biomarker Prediction via Novel Representation Learning. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2407.07277
- Novel Representation Learning Improves Personalizing Blood Test Ranges and Disease Risk Prediction. (2023). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3054397/v1
- Kuś, A., Sterenborg, R., Haug, E. B., Zhao, W., Visser, W. E., Smit, J. W. A., Bednarczuk, T., Peeters, R. P., Åsvold, B. O., Teumer, A., & Medici, M. (2024). Towards personalized TSH reference ranges: A genetic and population-based approach in three independent cohorts. Thyroid. https://doi.org/10.1089/thy.2024.0045
- Tecson, K. M., Tecson, K. M., Tecson, K. M., Erhardtsen, E., Eriksen, P. M., Gaber, A. O., Germain, M. J., Golestaneh, L., Lavoria, M. de los A., Moore, L. W., & McCullough, P. A. (2017). Optimal cut points of plasma and urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin for the prediction of acute kidney injury among critically ill adults: retrospective determination and clinical validation of a prospective multicentre study. BMJ Open, 7(7). https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2017-016028
- Ma, Y., Yong, Z., Wei, L., Yuan, H., Wan, L., Pei, X., Zhang, F., Wen, G., Jin, C., Gu, Y., Zhang, Q., Zhao, W., & Zhu, B. (2024). Data mining of reference intervals for serum creatinine: an improvement in glomerular filtration rate estimating equations based on Q-values. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 0. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2023-1421
- Blatter, T. U., Nakas, C. T., & Leichtle, A. (2024). Direct, age- and gender-specific reference intervals: applying a modified M-estimator of the Yeo-Johnson transformation to clinical real-world data. Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1515/labmed-2024-0076
- Bawua, A. S., Ichihara, K., Keatley, R., Mensah, J. A., Kumi, P. F. A., Erasmus, R. T., & Fobil, J. N. (2023). Derivation of sex and age-specific reference intervals for clinical chemistry analytes in healthy Ghanaian adults. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2023(1). https://doi.org/10.1289/isee.2023.fp-080
- Newcomb, P. A., Cohen, B. M., & Ceulemans, A. (2022). Laboratory Result Reference Ranges Stratified for Patient-Reported Sex and Ethnicity Are More Closely Associated With Postoperative Outcomes Than Currently Used Reference Ranges: A Retrospective Data Analysis. 136(1), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000006229
- Hofer, I., Lee, A., Grogan, T., Lucero, J., & Cannesson, M. (2022). Laboratory Result Reference Ranges Stratified for Patient-Reported Sex and Ethnicity Are More Closely Associated With Postoperative Outcomes Than Currently Used Reference Ranges: A Retrospective Data Analysis. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 136, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006229
- Ma, C., Zheng, Y., & Qiu, L. (2023). Development of next-generation reference interval models to establish reference intervals based on medical data: current status, algorithms and future consideration. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2023.2291379
- Qin, X., & Liu, J. (2023). Current status and challenges in establishing reference intervals based on real-world data. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2023.2195496
- Mergen, E. K., & Karahan, S. (2024). Comparison of univariate and multivariate reference interval methods. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.04.621828
- Coskun, A., Serteser, M., Cavusoglu, C., Kilercik, M., & Unsal, I. (2020). A New Model to Determine the Personal Reference Interval of Tests in Laboratory Medicine: A Preliminary Study. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.07.20020446