A1c: what the trials say vs what this community says
A1c: what the trials say vs what this community says. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
My A1c moved and I spent a fortnight convinced I knew why. The repeat six weeks later was back in range and I had changed nothing.
Compared two draws across two labs and spent a week worrying before finding out the assays were different.
Time of day, fasting state, hydration and recent exercise all move common markers. Standardising the draw conditions is free and it removes most of the apparent variability.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
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
Agreed — and standardising the draw conditions is the cheapest improvement available.
[deleted]
Correction: that marker is reported in different units by different labs, which explains the tenfold difference you are seeing.
fasting state and time of day change more than people expect
Same lab as the previous draw?
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.
Added ApoB to the panel after a thread here. It told me something the standard lipid panel had been hiding.
Same view — ApoB if you add one thing. It answers a question the standard panel only gestures at.
Same view — ApoB if you add one thing.
Adding the obvious one — take it to whoever ordered the panel. This board cannot read it for you.
Same view — ApoB if you add one thing.
santiago_rasmussen is right that a reference interval is not a target. It is a description of a population.
Push back: a value just outside a reference interval is a common finding in healthy people. It is a reason to repeat.
That is a non-fasting value and the interval you are comparing it against is a fasting one.
Small fix — a reference interval is not a treatment target, and the post above uses them interchangeably.
one measurement is a point, two is a line, three is a trend
one measurement is a point, two is a line, three is a trend
This is the sentence to read before anybody panics about a single value.
Right, and weight loss itself moves several markers, so attribution is harder than these threads assume.
Brought the whole set to my clinician rather than one flagged value. Completely different conversation.
nothing on this board interprets your results for you
I would not draw a line through two points, especially when the second was taken at a different time of day.
- 1Same lab as the previous draw?12 comments in this branch · started by u/copay_card_cc