[Results] 51 weeks on 1.7mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring
51 weeks on 1.7mg, full numbers, ask me anything boring, logged the same way every week so the comparison is at least internally fair.
51 weeks and 1.7mg — those are the numbers, and they are the ones I am willing to defend.
Reference intervals are typically the central 95% of a reference population. By construction one person in twenty falls outside one on any given test without anything being wrong.
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.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
ApoB is the one worth adding if you only add one
Took a baseline the week before starting purely because this board told me to. Best five minutes I have spent on this.
assay method matters, especially between different labs
assay method matters, especially between different labs
This is the sentence to read before anybody panics about a single value.
lab reference ranges are not treatment targets
Correction: that marker is reported in different units by different labs, which explains the tenfold difference you are seeing.
Yes. Repeat before you react. Almost every alarming single value I have posted here regressed on the repeat.
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.
Draw at the same point in the week now, fasting, same lab. The noise dropped enormously once I standardised.
Small fix — a reference interval is not a treatment target, and the post above uses them interchangeably.
Agreed. The trend is the signal. A single value is a snapshot of one morning.
Same lab as the previous draw?
Compared two draws across two labs and spent a week worrying before finding out the assays were different.
Left up. It is a question about how to compare panels, not a request for interpretation.
Added ApoB to the panel after a thread here. It told me something the standard lipid panel had been hiding.
Different laboratories use different assay platforms with different calibration. Comparing across labs adds a systematic offset that is invisible on the report.
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.
Different laboratories use different assay platforms with different calibration.
tidy_vialdrawer_watch is right that a reference interval is not a target. It is a description of a population.
one measurement is a point, two is a line, three is a trend
Tracked ApoB against the weight trend for a year. The correlation was much weaker than I expected and that was worth knowing.
Do you have a baseline from before you started?
How many weeks between the two measurements?
How many weeks between the two measurements?
Adding the obvious one — take it to whoever ordered the panel. This board cannot read it for you.
Repeat testing before acting is standard practice for a reason: regression to the mean does a lot of work on single outlying values.
Same view — ApoB if you add one thing. It answers a question the standard panel only gestures at.
[deleted]
baseline before you start is worth more than any later panel
My ALT moved and I spent a fortnight convinced I knew why. The repeat six weeks later was back in range and I had changed nothing.
That comparison crosses two labs with different assays. The difference you are describing may be the method.
- 1Nobody here can interpret your panel and this comment is not doing so. What…8 comments in this branch · started by u/andres_restrepo
- 2Compared two draws across two labs and spent a week worrying before finding…8 comments in this branch · started by u/janek_ferrari