TY - JOUR
T1 - Adaptive reference ranges
T2 - From A to Z
AU - Roshan, Davood
AU - Das, Kishor
AU - Daniels, Diarmuid
AU - Pedlar, Charles R.
AU - Catterson, Paul
AU - Newell, John
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 Roshan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2025/5
Y1 - 2025/5
N2 - Clinical reference ranges are fundamental in medical diagnostics, offering critical benchmarks for interpreting laboratory test results. Adaptive reference ranges, in particular, are essential for personalised monitoring, as they enable the detection of abnormal values by accounting for individual variability over time. This paper compares two key approaches for generating adaptive reference ranges: the Z-score method and the linear mixed-effects modelling framework. Through simulation studies and real data applications, we provide practical insights into selecting the most appropriate methods for adaptive monitoring in personalised medicine and sport science. Our findings highlight the trade-offs between these approaches, with the Z-score method favouring specificity, while the linear mixed-effects model prioritises sensitivity and offers greater flexibility by incorporating population-level data, accommodating covariates, and effectively handling missing data.
AB - Clinical reference ranges are fundamental in medical diagnostics, offering critical benchmarks for interpreting laboratory test results. Adaptive reference ranges, in particular, are essential for personalised monitoring, as they enable the detection of abnormal values by accounting for individual variability over time. This paper compares two key approaches for generating adaptive reference ranges: the Z-score method and the linear mixed-effects modelling framework. Through simulation studies and real data applications, we provide practical insights into selecting the most appropriate methods for adaptive monitoring in personalised medicine and sport science. Our findings highlight the trade-offs between these approaches, with the Z-score method favouring specificity, while the linear mixed-effects model prioritises sensitivity and offers greater flexibility by incorporating population-level data, accommodating covariates, and effectively handling missing data.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105005755324
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0323133
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0323133
M3 - Article
C2 - 40408313
AN - SCOPUS:105005755324
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 20
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 5 May
M1 - e0323133
ER -