LDL-C equation disagreement as a threshold-integrity flag for orthogonal lipid confirmation.

Authors

Ronald Doku, Nana Yaw A Osafo, John Kwagyan, William M Southerland

Published in

Journal of clinical lipidology. Sep 14, 2026. Epub Sep 14, 2026.

Abstract

Multiple low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) equations can be applied to every standard lipid panel. Disagreement across a treatment threshold may indicate unstable classification.
To test LDL-C equation disagreement as a calculation-only threshold-integrity flag and as a trigger for orthogonal lipid confirmation.
We analyzed decontaminated All of Us lipid panels with same-day standard lipids and direct homogeneous LDL-C, recognizing that direct LDL-C is a clinical reference assay rather than beta-quantification. Friedewald, Sampson/National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Martin-Hopkins were evaluated at LDL-C thresholds of 70, 100, and 130 mg/dL; 55 mg/dL was added in the temporal audit. The 3-equation disagreement flag was compared against triglyceride (TG)-based reflex rules. Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) was used for external stress testing.
Equation agreement identified a high-stability majority: in the primary All of Us cohort, equations agreed for 86% to 92% of panels with 92% to 95% threshold accuracy. In the temporal audit, future clean panels showed 3-equation disagreement in 10.2%, 11.4%, 9.2%, and 5.8% of rows at LDL-C thresholds of 55, 70, 100, and 130 mg/dL. Disagreement-subgroup accuracy was lower for all 3 equations. The 3-equation straddle outperformed TG ≥200 mg/dL for detecting apparent at-goal discordance at all 4 thresholds. Sparse apolipoprotein B (ApoB) analyses supported ApoB as an independent witness.
LDL-C equation disagreement is a threshold-integrity flag, not proof that any equation is wrong. When equations disagree near a treatment goal, clinicians should avoid treating the LDL-C threshold result as unqualified and consider orthogonal confirmation, preferably ApoB, when particle burden is the clinical question.

PMID:
42810873
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 30 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.