One thing that is still open after NurseAsh_DET’s answer:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

hank_denver said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

hank_denver said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

hank_denver said:

Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.

Saving this. It is the first explanation that did not require me to already understand it. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.

Worth separating that from cross-border ordering, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.