Personalized reference intervals: from theory to practice

Abstract

Using laboratory test results for diagnosis and monitoring requires a reliable reference to which the results can be compared. Currently, most reference data is derived from the population, and patients in this context are considered members of a population group rather than individuals. However, such reference data has limitations when used as the reference for an individual. A patient’s test results preferably should be compared with their own, individualized reference intervals (RI), i.e. a personalized RI (prRI).

The prRI is based on the homeostatic model and can be calculated using an individual’s previous test results obtained in a steady-state situation and estimates of analytical (CV_A) and biological variation (BV). BV used to calculate the prRI can be obtained from the population (within-subject biological variation, CV_I) or an individual’s own data (within-person biological variation, CV_P). Statistically, the prediction interval provides a useful tool to calculate the interval (i.e. prRI) for future observation based on previous measurements. With the development of information technology, the data of millions of patients is stored and processed in medical laboratories, allowing the implementation of personalized laboratory medicine. PrRI for each individual should be made available as part of the laboratory information system and should be continually updated as new test results become available.

In this review, we summarize the limitations of population-based RI for the diagnosis and monitoring of disease, provide an outline of the prRI concept and different approaches to its determination, including statistical considerations for deriving prRI, and discuss aspects which must be further investigated prior to implementation of prRI in clinical practice.

Keywords:

• Biological variation
• index of individuality
• personalized reference intervals
• population-based reference intervals
• prediction interval
• reference change value

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).