how much of what we believe about eGFR actually comes from A1c threads
how much of what we believe about eGFR actually comes from A1c threads. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post.
ApoB counts atherogenic particles rather than the cholesterol they carry, which is why it can diverge from LDL-C and why it is the addition most worth making.
Why so many single values look alarming and turn out to be nothing.
A reference interval is built to contain about 95% of a healthy reference population, so one test in twenty falls outside one by construction. Add biological variation, assay imprecision, fasting state and time of day, and a genuinely stable person will produce occasional out-of-range results.
That is why repeat testing before acting is standard. Regression to the mean handles most of it. None of which means an out-of-range value should be ignored — it means it should be repeated and taken to somebody who can put it in context, which is emphatically not a ranked feed.
The confounding problem, stated plainly, because this board keeps stepping on it.
Substantial weight loss moves lipids, liver enzymes, insulin sensitivity markers and several others in its own right. If you are losing weight while taking something, any change in those markers has at least two candidate explanations and you cannot separate them from your own panel.
What you can do is standardise, take a baseline, keep the series long, and be honest in your posts about what is and is not attributable. The threads that say "this compound did X to my TSH" almost never have the design to support the claim, mine included.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Substantial weight loss independently moves lipids, liver enzymes and several other markers. Attributing a change to a compound while losing weight is confounded by design.
Cosigning on baseline. The panel I regret most is the one I did not take before starting.
Is that the same assay, or did the lab change platforms?
Agreed on assay changes. A lab switching platforms between your draws is invisible unless you ask.
Correction: that marker is reported in different units by different labs, which explains the tenfold difference you are seeing.
do not change three things and then read the panel
That is a non-fasting value and the interval you are comparing it against is a fasting one.
do not change three things and then read the panel
Disagreeing with this bit: that change is confounded by the weight loss itself and cannot be attributed.
How to make a panel worth comparing, which is most of the value people leave on the table.
Standardise the conditions: same lab, same fasting state, same rough time of day, same point in the week, similar hydration. Take a baseline before you change anything. Repeat any surprising value before acting on it. Change one thing at a time if you want to attribute anything to it.
Do that and a year of panels is a trend. Skip it and a year of panels is a collection of unrelated mornings, which is what most of the alarmed posts here are actually describing.
Compared two draws across two labs and spent a week worrying before finding out the assays were different.
Yes. Repeat before you react. Almost every alarming single value I have posted here regressed on the repeat.
Same view — ApoB if you add one thing. It answers a question the standard panel only gestures at.
assay method matters, especially between different labs
the trend line matters more than any single value
Small fix — a reference interval is not a treatment target, and the post above uses them interchangeably.
I would not draw a line through two points, especially when the second was taken at a different time of day.
Repeat testing before acting is standard practice for a reason: regression to the mean does a lot of work on single outlying values.
Careful — that is a question for whoever ordered the panel, and nobody in this thread can answer it responsibly.
one measurement is a point, two is a line, three is a trend
bring the numbers to someone qualified to read them
lab reference ranges are not treatment targets
Nobody here can interpret your panel and this comment is not doing so. What a board can usefully do is help you ask better questions of somebody who can.
a single hs-CRP outside range is a reason to repeat, not to panic
- 1How to make a panel worth comparing, which is most of the value people leave…8 comments in this branch · started by u/liver_enzyme_liz
- 2Agreed on assay changes. A lab switching platforms between your draws is…6 comments in this branch · started by u/a1c_arc