{"title":"基于生物学变异的个性化参考区间应用的视角与思考:1例女性SARS-CoV-2再感染的4个月观察","authors":"Gaofeng Hu, Lei Xu, Kai Guo, Chenbin Li","doi":"10.11613/BM.2025.030901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to investigate potential benefit of personalized reference intervals (prRIs) by conducting a four-month observation of a woman with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Two types of prRIs were calculated: one derived from the population biological variation (BV) data provided by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) biological variation database (prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub>), and the other derived from individual variation data (prRIs_<sub>ind.</sub>). These were subsequently compared. A total of 110 test results encompassing complete blood count (CBC) and leukocyte differential counts from the case were assessed according to the limits of prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub>, reference change values (RCVs_<sub>pop.</sub>) and the population-based reference intervals (popRIs). In instances where limited historical health data are available (N ≤ 3), the application of prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub> was recommended over prRIs_<sub>ind</sub>. The prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub> and RCVs_<sub>pop.</sub> identified a greater number of potential clinical pathological change compared to popRIs (the ratio of potential abnormal values to total test values: prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub> 22/110, RCVs_<sub>pop.</sub> 25/110, popRIs 2/110, respectively). The findings suggest that the use of prRIs can be advantageous in clinical settings and is worthy of broader adoption. However, it is essential to choose an appropriate calculation method tailored to the specific clinical context.</p>","PeriodicalId":94370,"journal":{"name":"Biochemia medica","volume":"35 3","pages":"030901"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12334944/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perspective and consideration in the application of personalized reference intervals based on biological variation: a four-month observation of a woman with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.\",\"authors\":\"Gaofeng Hu, Lei Xu, Kai Guo, Chenbin Li\",\"doi\":\"10.11613/BM.2025.030901\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to investigate potential benefit of personalized reference intervals (prRIs) by conducting a four-month observation of a woman with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Two types of prRIs were calculated: one derived from the population biological variation (BV) data provided by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) biological variation database (prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub>), and the other derived from individual variation data (prRIs_<sub>ind.</sub>). These were subsequently compared. A total of 110 test results encompassing complete blood count (CBC) and leukocyte differential counts from the case were assessed according to the limits of prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub>, reference change values (RCVs_<sub>pop.</sub>) and the population-based reference intervals (popRIs). In instances where limited historical health data are available (N ≤ 3), the application of prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub> was recommended over prRIs_<sub>ind</sub>. The prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub> and RCVs_<sub>pop.</sub> identified a greater number of potential clinical pathological change compared to popRIs (the ratio of potential abnormal values to total test values: prRIs_<sub>pop.</sub> 22/110, RCVs_<sub>pop.</sub> 25/110, popRIs 2/110, respectively). The findings suggest that the use of prRIs can be advantageous in clinical settings and is worthy of broader adoption. However, it is essential to choose an appropriate calculation method tailored to the specific clinical context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biochemia medica\",\"volume\":\"35 3\",\"pages\":\"030901\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12334944/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biochemia medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2025.030901\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biochemia medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2025.030901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Perspective and consideration in the application of personalized reference intervals based on biological variation: a four-month observation of a woman with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.
This study aimed to investigate potential benefit of personalized reference intervals (prRIs) by conducting a four-month observation of a woman with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Two types of prRIs were calculated: one derived from the population biological variation (BV) data provided by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) biological variation database (prRIs_pop.), and the other derived from individual variation data (prRIs_ind.). These were subsequently compared. A total of 110 test results encompassing complete blood count (CBC) and leukocyte differential counts from the case were assessed according to the limits of prRIs_pop., reference change values (RCVs_pop.) and the population-based reference intervals (popRIs). In instances where limited historical health data are available (N ≤ 3), the application of prRIs_pop. was recommended over prRIs_ind. The prRIs_pop. and RCVs_pop. identified a greater number of potential clinical pathological change compared to popRIs (the ratio of potential abnormal values to total test values: prRIs_pop. 22/110, RCVs_pop. 25/110, popRIs 2/110, respectively). The findings suggest that the use of prRIs can be advantageous in clinical settings and is worthy of broader adoption. However, it is essential to choose an appropriate calculation method tailored to the specific clinical context.