2/15/23 Update:
OK Len, do you not understand what the word ‘proxy’ means?
Need to keep reminding myself that the below items are not direct measurements. I guess my methylation status is consistent with their psuedo-direct imputed values.
Above is from another useful video about interpreting your results. And it has a transcript link in the description. (The title shown in the preview is not indicative of the content.)
In the above, it is mentioned that the proxy value for the heavily-weighted RDW may not entirely align with what is indicated by ‘real’ RDW. Their proxy value is more reflective of inflammation. (Or so I think I heard.) Perhaps having osteoarthritis and cardio disease, among other things, contributes to my inflated RDW proxy.
Here is a compilation of the epigenetic biomarker proxies, what they predict, and suggestions as to how to improve.
Original post:
I think the calculation of my OMICMage has, at least partially, a ‘garbage in’ problem.
Here are some key measures from the report:
6.36 would likely put me in the diabetic camp.
Now here are my LabCorp test results for the last year. The result furthest left (5.1) is from February 2. (It seems the akkermansia and other treatments are having an effect.) (The Tru blood sample is from January 23, so about ten days earlier.) The highest reading I had at any time in 2023 is 5.6.
So how on earth could they come up with 6.4, when only a few days later, LabCorp reported 5.1? The Tru result is not credible.
Labcorp for the last year:
Again, the 12.2 LabCorp reading is from February 2, and and the one next to it (12.0) is from January 5. The 14.6 Tru result falls between those to results. So, 12.0 ->14.6->12.2. Not credible.
I think the above number is likely mg/dL. I don’t recall any instructions to be fasting when taking the blood sample. I sure as hell don’t have a fasting glucose of 120, again, that sounds like diabetes territory. 86 was the February 2 reading. It’s usually in the mid to high 80’s.
Creatinine - They report my highest number ever, 1.7. My January and February numbers were 1.5. Possible, maybe, but probable, I don’t think so.
The other standard blood markers look plausible. But the above line items I’m questioning have considerable weighting in the age calculation. Look at the weightings below for RDW, glucose, and A1c. My guess is that, if valid values were included in my calculation, my ‘age’ would be at least a couple years younger.
I thought I was going to get some feedback on the above by emailing Tru support, but I’m being told to get all my questions together, and arrange a paid consult. I’m going to try emailing the head honcho and see if I get a credible answer.
