Partitioning of nongaussian-distributed biochemical reference data into subgroups.

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to develop new methods for partitioning biochemical reference data, covering in particular nongaussian distributions. METHODS We recently proposed partitioning criteria for gaussian distributions. These criteria relate to proportions of the subgroups outside each of the reference limits of the combined distribution (proportion criteria) and to distances between the subgroup distributions as correlates of these proportions (distance criteria). However, distance criteria do not seem to be ideal for nongaussian distributions because a generally valid relationship between proportions and distances cannot be established for these. RESULTS Proportion criteria appear preferable to distance criteria for two additional reasons: (a) The prevalences of the subgroup populations may have a considerable effect on stratification, but these are hard to account for by using distance criteria. Two methods to handle prevalences are described, the root method and the multiplication method. (b) Tied reference values, another complication of the partitioning problem, could also be hard to take care of using distance criteria. Some solutions to the problems caused by tied reference values are suggested. CONCLUSIONS Partitioning of biochemical reference data should preferably be based on proportion criteria; this is particularly true for nongaussian distributions. Both of the described complications of the partitioning problem, the prevalences of the subgroups and tied reference values, are hard to deal with using distance criteria, but the proposed methods make it possible to account for them when proportion criteria are applied.

[1]  A. Lahti,et al.  Impact of subgroup prevalences on partitioning of Gaussian-distributed reference values. , 2002, Clinical chemistry.

[2]  H. E. Solberg,et al.  Approved Recommendation on the Theory of Reference Values , 1991 .

[3]  H. E. Solberg Approved recommendation (1987) on the theory of reference values. Part 5. Statistical treatment of collected reference values. Determination of reference limits , 1987 .

[4]  H E Solberg,et al.  The theory of reference values Part 5. Statistical treatment of collected reference values. Determination of reference limits. , 1983, Journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry. Zeitschrift fur klinische Chemie und klinische Biochemie.

[5]  Callum G Fraser,et al.  Objective criteria for partitioning Gaussian-distributed reference values into subgroups. , 2002, Clinical chemistry.

[6]  A. H. Reed,et al.  Influence of statistical method used on the resulting estimate of normal range. , 1971, Clinical chemistry.

[7]  A. Lahti Are the common reference intervals truly common? Case studies on stratifying biochemical reference data by countries using two partitioning methods , 2004, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[8]  K. Linnet,et al.  Nonparametric estimation of reference intervals by simple and bootstrap-based procedures. , 2000, Clinical chemistry.

[9]  James C. Boyd,et al.  Statistical Bases of Reference Values in Laboratory Medicine , 1995 .

[10]  J C Boyd,et al.  On dividing reference data into subgroups to produce separate reference ranges. , 1990, Clinical chemistry.

[11]  D. Connelly,et al.  Improved reference-interval estimation. , 1985, Clinical chemistry.

[12]  E. Bruck,et al.  National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. , 1980, Pediatrics.