{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiaavobxzngf7tquk32omhwadpxkwzpoqcxzbmzyby4eyz4xmwdjwi",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mkkrfcmyi5s2"
  },
  "path": "/t/biomarker-ratios/28716#post_4",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-28T12:28:19.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "textContent": "I would love to see discussion on this. As a clinician, ratios of biomarkers make intuitive sense to me for specific contexts. For instance, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio for bacterial lower respiratory tract infection (for which, at least theoretically, higher neutrophils tend to correlate with a bacterial cause and lower lymphocytes with viral illness) and urea to creatinine ratio, because for renal causes of ureamia, voru tend to rise together but in upper gastrointestinal bleeding, urea tends to rise much steeper than creatinine.\n\nI have often wondered what are the statistical downsides, above and beyond theoretical issues. One consideration I had that I am not sure how relevant is, is that the ratio presumably multiplies the measurement and analytical error of both biomarkers. Unfortunately, I don’t think I understand Harrell’s point but I will read up on it and discuss here if and when I do.",
  "title": "Biomarker ratios"
}