[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…
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.