Back

Distance-to-optimum biological drift as a new framework for interpreting routine laboratory results: a benchmark against Reference Change Values across 62 routine biomarkers

Bezier, C.; Rolland, J.; Boutin, R.; Gruson, D.

2026-07-06 biochemistry
10.64898/2026.07.06.736744 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Background: We propose the biological drift framework for the interpretation of biological test results: a z-score-like framework based on optimized and personalized reference populations and a distance-to-optimum drift metric for longitudinal interpretation relative to an estimated individual optimum. We benchmarked biological drifts against Reference Change Values (RCVs), which are used to interpret serial laboratory results by defining the minimum change expected to exceed normal within-subject biological variation CVi. Objectives: To benchmark biological drifts against the classical biological-variation framework and assess their consistency with RCV thresholds across routine biomarkers. Methods: For 62 routine biomarkers, biological drift levels were compared with RCVs after transformation to test the consistency between the two frameworks. Results: Severe biological drifts mostly exceeded the 95% RCV threshold, indicating changes unlikely to be explained by short-term biological variation alone. In contrast, moderate drifts reached the 95% RCV threshold for approximately one in two biomarkers, suggesting that many moderate distance-to-optimum deviations may remain within expected variability, particularly for biomarkers with large within-subject variation CVi. Results are particularly interesting for the follow-up of people with diabetes and for the management of thyroid and hepatic disorders. Conclusions: Biological drifts derived from optimized personalized reference populations are broadly consistent with the RCV framework for identifying biologically meaningful deviations from the optimum and may therefore be relevant for the monitoring of certain biomarkers across several medical conditions in clinical practice.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 8%
20.4%
2
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
13.1%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 6%
8.7%
4
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
5
Metabolites
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
6
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Water Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.3%
8
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.3%
9
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
10
Metabolomics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
11
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
12
Biogerontology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
13
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.5%
14
Analytical Chemistry
218 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
15
BioMed Research International
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
17
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 24%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
19
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 14%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
21
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
23
Journal of Virological Methods
37 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
24
Talanta
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
25
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 67%
0.7%
26
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%
27
Statistics in Medicine
40 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
28
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
29
MethodsX
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
30
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%