Building a sensible monitoring schedule with your prescriber posts 91–109

TSH and free hormones: TSH is a reasonable screening test but does not tell you about actual free hormone levels. If TSH is abnormal, free thyroid hormones confirm whether there is a real thyroid problem.

I read post #90 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Reference intervals: constructed to contain the central 95% of a reference population, which means one in twenty healthy people falls outside one by definition. Add biological variation and analytical imprecision and the base rate of a meaningless flag is substantial.

post #92 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

TSH and free hormones: TSH is a reasonable screening test but does not tell you about actual free hormone levels. If TSH is abnormal, free thyroid hormones confirm whether there is a real thyroid problem.

Liver enzymes: elevation does not specify cause. ALT and AST can rise from many things. Bilirubin helps narrow down the cause. Multiple markers together are more informative than one alone.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

post #96 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Lipid panel interpretation: total, LDL, HDL, triglycerides all on one panel. Reading them together is more informative than reading one value in isolation. An elevated triglyceride with low HDL is different from triglyceride elevation alone.

On post #94 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

HbA1c and glucose: HbA1c reflects average glucose over months; a spot glucose measurement reflects the moment. Trending glucose downward while HbA1c stays flat is a different picture than glucose going up with HbA1c.

This follows post #96 rather than contradicting it.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

Fasting state: some lab tests require fasting; others do not. Lipids on a fasting draw differ from lipids on a fed draw. Always note whether the test was fasting when comparing results.

Biological variation: the person-to-person variation in a biomarker for a healthy person is larger than most people realize. Comparing your result to the reference interval is one thing; comparing your result today to your result from months ago is more sensitive to change.

I read post #100 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

Time of day: some biomarkers vary across the day. Cortisol in the morning differs from cortisol in the evening. Comparing results from different times of day is comparing things that are not the same.

Analytical imprecision: any measurement has an error margin. A small difference in consecutive tests is usually measurement noise, not a real change. Knowing the imprecision helps distinguish noise from signal.