Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.

One concrete data point for the thread. Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here. A large fraction of the apparent disagreement in these threads is two people using different units and both being right.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

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

bri_stats said:

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

Pushing back on bri_stats here. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.