Lab results - looking for opinions [PLEASE READ 1ST POST]

As Kate Collins67 mentioned, densitometry is performed on specific bones—not necessarily the ones causing pain, but rather those with established reference values, such as the hip, lumbar spine, or heel—and its primary purpose is to measure bone density and assess the progression of osteoporosis.
If a metastasis happens to be located in one of those exact spots, its presence might be suspected, but let's be clear: densitometry is by no means a tool for diagnosing metastases.

Her physician should direct her toward X-rays of the painful areas and, most importantly, a bone scan.
Depending on what the bone scan reveals, a CT scan of individual bones might also be necessary.

While an MRI is superior for evaluating soft tissue, a CT scan holds an absolute advantage when it comes to examining bone structures.

wanderingcobra76 said:MRI is definitely better if you're looking at soft tissue, but when it comes to bone structures? CT wins hands down.

Look, I used to think exactly the same way, but honestly—it’s not that simple:
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) might be brought in for an evaluation specifically when those first bone scans don't give you any clear answers [3, 4]. Because MRI has such incredibly high soft tissue resolution, it actually lets you see the medullary cavity of the bone—which is where most bone marrow (BM) originates—way more clearly than any X-ray-based tech could. We're talking about radiography or CT, both of which just lack that kind of soft tissue detail. In fact, studies have shown that MRI can pick up much more BM than radiography, CT, or bone scans (BS) [10, 11], even if it does cost a bit more out of pocket.

Source http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/con...nc.mdr397.full

Kate Collins67 said:I can only offer my own perspective here.

If a metastasis is located within the specific areas covered by a densitometry scan—and if the bone damage is significant enough—it might show up; however, that's only true if the lesion is right where the densitometry "looks." Otherwise, even a standard X-ray often fails to catch bone metastases.

But there’s really no point in overthinking it—if there's any suspicion of metastasis, the logical step is to get a standard X-ray of the painful area, followed by an MRI.

Mr. Thank You for the response!
My sister had an X-ray two days ago; when I asked about a diagnosis, she mentioned being referred to an oncologist and brought up something called osteoplastic—I looked it up, but apparently, osteoplastic isn't a type of cancer.
Her densitometry from six months ago showed her bones were fine.
Given that she’s dealing with intense pain on the left side of her pelvis that radiates down her left leg—almost like sciatica—she’s receiving injections of dexamethasone plus something else, I'm not entirely sure, which helps enough for her to stay mobile.
I suppose I just feel she made a mistake by not opting for surgery earlier.
Thanks again for the help!

Kate Collins67 said:I used to feel the same way—but consider this:
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) might be an option for evaluation if the first round of bone imaging doesn't yield clear results [3, 4]. Because MRI offers such high soft tissue resolution, it can actually show the medullary cavity of the bone—which is where most BM originates—much more clearly than X-rays or CT scans, which just don't have that same level of detail. In fact, studies have shown that MRI can detect more BM than radiography, CT, or BS [10, 11], though it does come with a higher price tag.

Source http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/con...nc.mdr397.full

Well, obviously—an MRI is much better suited for visualizing bone marrow; there’s really no debate there. However, the idea is that you'd only move to an MRI if the initial CT or PET/CT comes back negative despite having a legitimate clinical suspicion.

Thanks for sharing the article!
👍

Dear Doctors,

I have received two sets of lab results—toxoplasmosis and Listeria monocytogenes (29 g., these tests were part of my follow-up after two spontaneous miscarriages)

SEROLOGY TEST RESULTS

ELISA IgG Toxoplasmosis res: negative IU/ml (ref - neg 8
ELISA IgM Toxoplasmosis res: negative 0.07 IU/ml (ref - neg 0.651

Now, I am somewhat unsure where this 0.07 originates—could it perhaps suggest a recent infection that is just beginning to surface🤷 or is there something else at play? Please, if you could clarify the significance of this result...

SEROLOGY TEST RESULTS

Agglutination for Listeria monocytogenes

H 1 negative / units: dilution / (ref. value H 4b negative / units: dilution / (ref. value O 1 negative 1:160 / units: dilution / (ref. value O 4b negative 1:160 / units: dilution / (ref. value
The situation is much the same as above—I do not quite grasp what this 1:160 signifies. I see that it falls within the reference range, but does it imply there is still something present in my blood... perhaps something that might flare up later?

Thank you in advance,

a.

Let me give this a shot...

Regarding the toxoplasmosis results—it’s negative. If you want to get really deep into the weeds and start over-theorizing, you could argue that the result might just be caught in the "early stages," but honestly? That feels like pure speculation at this point, and frankly, that's not even my specialty.

Now, about the Listeria: looking at the medical literature, serology—which is basically what they did here—isn't actually an objective way to prove a Listeria infection. Whether or not this is standard routine practice here in the States is something you’d really need to clear up with an infectious disease specialist. But strictly speaking, a 1:160 titer means that "one unit of your sample" was diluted with 160 units of some reagent (I don't know exactly which substance they used), and at that level of dilution, those specific antibodies weren't detected. Even if they were, you'd typically need to see them show up at a higher dilution, like 1:320, to even consider calling it a borderline or positive result.

To put it in plain English—layman's terms, if you will—it’s like throwing one gram of sand into a small glass of water and trying to find it, and then throwing that same gram into a massive swimming pool and trying to find it. If you can still spot it in the swimming pool (a 1:100 ratio, say), then there was probably much more than just one gram in there to begin with.

So, finding antibodies at a higher dilution indicates a stronger presence, which allows you to indirectly infer the "existence and intensity of an infection"—or, conversely, suggests that the immune response isn't quite hitting the mark.

I hope I haven't missed anything major.

At the end of the day, the most important thing is whether you’re actually feeling sick—was this testing done because you have symptoms, or was it just some routine screening?

FSH:10.60
LH:15.50
PROLACTIN:233.00
DHEA-SO4:6.7
ANDROSTENDIONE:29.10
FREE TESTOSTERONE:8.80
TESTOSTERONE:5.30
ESTRADIOL:0.208
17-OH PROG:5.50
SHBG:35.00

cortisol: 1047.00
reference range: morning 138-689 nM

Unfortunately, I don't have the full report or the reference ranges handy. If anyone knows if these numbers look okay based on this, let me know.
Tested on day 5 of my cycle.

So, I went in for my thyroid blood work yesterday and just picked up the results today.

It says this:
TSH ref.interval 0.35-4.94 ------ my result is 5.264
T3 ref.interval 0.89-2.44 ------ my result is 2.75
T4 ref.interval 62.68-150.84 ------ my result is 107.11

Basically, TSH and T3 are both high. My doctor couldn't really wrap his head around it—he actually said the combination is kind of weird
since those two are elevated 😕
so he gave me a referral to go see the specialists over at the Mayo Clinic...

Does anyone here happen to know more about this, or maybe dealt with something similar? 🤷

Thanks in advance! 😉

hollowmoose11 said:FSH: 10.60
LH: 15.50
PROLACTIN: 233.00
DHEA-SO4: 6.7
ANDROSTENDIONE: 29.10
FREE TESTOSTERONE: 8.80
TESTOSTERONE: 5.30
ESTRADIOL: 0.208
17-OH PROG: 5.50
SHBG: 35.00

cortisol: 1047.00
reference range: morning 138-689 nM

Unfortunately, I don't have the full report with me or the reference ranges, so if anyone knows based on this whether they look okay,
done on day 5 of my cycle.

I can't tell you off the top of my head—you absolutely have to check the reference intervals, the symptoms that led to these tests, and any potential diagnosis or treatment.

rapidtrucker90 said:I had my thyroid hormones drawn yesterday and picked up the results today.

It says this:
TSH ref. interval 0.35-4.94 ------ my result is 5.264
T3 ref. interval 0.89-2.44 ------ my result is 2.75
T4 ref. interval 62.68-150.84 ------ my result is 107.11

So TSH and T3 are elevated. My doctor couldn't quite explain it to me; he just said it’s an unusual combination that both of those are high.
😕
He gave me a referral to go to the Mayo Clinic...

Does anyone here know more about this, or has anyone dealt with similar results? 🤷

Thanks in advance. 😉

Good grief,
please let us know what the endocrinologist says.

vividsailor7 said:Seriously though...
just let me know what the big endocrinology experts say.

I was actually kind of hoping you'd already posted an answer 😬

I'll give you a heads-up once I figure out what this specific combo actually means—currently Googling everything to see if there's any info out there.🤷

rapidtrucker90 said:I had my thyroid levels checked yesterday and picked up the results today.

It reads like this:
TSH ref. interval 0.35-4.94 ------ mine is 5.264
T3 ref. interval 0.89-2.44 ------ mine is 2.75
T4 ref. interval 62.68-150.84 ------ mine is 107.11

So, TSH and T3 are elevated. My doctor couldn't quite explain it; he said the combination is unusual
since both of those are high. 😕
He gave me a referral to go to the Mayo Clinic.

Does anyone here know more about this, or perhaps dealt with similar results? 🤷

Thanks in advance. 😉

Hello,

The constellation of these results is indeed odd. However, what stands out is that these appear to be total T4 and T3 levels, rather than free levels (fT4 and fT3).

Total thyroid hormone concentrations depend heavily on protein carriers. Certain conditions can raise total hormone levels not because the thyroid itself is overactive, but because there is an increase in these carrier proteins. Common causes include taking oral contraceptives or estrogen, pregnancy, or certain genetic factors.

Ultimately, the clinical picture matters most—your symptoms and any medications you might be taking. I expect the Mayo Clinic will want to repeat the tests and check your free hormone levels and antibodies.

Best regards. 🙂

Maria Fisher46 said:Hey there,

The whole set of results looks a bit funky—what stands out to me is that these seem to be the total T4 and T3 levels, rather than the free ones (fT4 and fT3).

Total thyroid hormone concentrations depend heavily on protein carriers in your blood. So, certain conditions that mess with those protein levels can actually bump up your total thyroid numbers, even if your thyroid itself is acting totally normal—it’s just that there are more "carriers" floating around. Things like being pregnant, genetic factors, or even taking birth control pills (estrogen) can cause this kind of shift.

At the end of the day, the clinical picture matters most—your actual symptoms and any other meds you might be on. I'd bet the doctors at the Mayo Clinic will probably want to run things again to check your free hormone levels and look for antibodies.

Best, 🙂

Thanks so much for the reply! 👍

It's totally possible it's from the birth control—I've been on them for ages (like, 6 years now)—but I think I'll take a break once I finish this current pack...

rapidtrucker90 said:Thanks a lot for the reply. 👍

It’s possible it’s due to birth control; I’ve been on them for years now (about 6 years), but I plan to take a break once I finish this pack..

If you are taking oral contraceptives, then total T3 and T4 levels aren't reliable indicators; you need to measure free T4 and free T3 instead.

I strongly suggest you inform your doctor at the Mayo Clinic about your medication. Birth control affects thyroid hormone readings, which can lead to these kinds of confusing results.

Best regards. 🙂

Hey there! Could someone please help me make sense of my mom's lab results? Her Neutrophil segmented granulocytes came back at 37.4, but the normal range is 44-72. Also, her lymphocytes are at 47.3, while the range is 20-46. Everything else looks totally normal. What could these specific numbers point toward? Thanks in advance!

Maria Fisher46 said:If you're on birth control, those total T3 and T4 numbers aren't really reliable—you'll need to get fT4 and fT3 checked instead.

I’d definitely suggest letting your doctor at the Mayo Clinic know you're taking them, because birth control can totally mess with your thyroid hormone readings and lead to these kinds of confusing results.

Best, 🙂

I'll be sure to... thanks 😉

I was wondering if anyone here with a bit of medical knowledge could help me make sense of this diagnosis:

Hypertransaminases et hyperdehydrogenases acidi la

Thanks in advance!

Hey there
Does anyone happen to know what a rheumatoid factor value of 10 actually means?
The lab reference range goes up to 14, so I'm assuming my result is "good"?

Thanks!

Keith Chavez8 said:I’m looking for anyone with a grasp of Latin medical terminology to help me decode this diagnosis:

Hypertransaminases et hyperdehydrogenases acidi la

Thanks in advance.

The diagnosis falls under code R74.0, specifically Hypertransaminases et hyperdehydrogenases acidi lactei (LDH). In plain English, that translates to elevated levels of transaminase and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH).

Essentially, this means blood work showed high values for certain "liver enzymes"—specifically AST and ALT—as well as an elevated level of the enzyme known as LDH.

What you're likely wondering is why these numbers are off, what they actually point to, or if they suggest a specific underlying condition.

Unfortunately, this single data point doesn't provide those answers. Please check the instructions in the first post of this thread and expand your query with more details; that way, someone might actually be able to assist you.

Best regards. 🙂

Nicole Lee4 said:Hi,
does anyone know what a rheumatoid factor value of 10 means?
The reference range goes up to 14, so does that mean mine is "good"?

thanks

The reference range is 14 mIU/L or less. Since yours is 10 mIU/L, the result would be considered negative.

A positive result—meaning elevated levels—can be seen in various conditions, most notably rheumatoid arthritis, though it can also appear in other illnesses or even in a small number of healthy individuals at lower levels.

While a negative result is common in healthy people, a negative finding alone (being below that 14 mIU/L threshold) cannot rule out a disease like rheumatoid arthritis.

For a more thorough interpretation, please read the first post and follow the provided instructions.

Best regards. 🙂

😁
I've been dealing with some inflammation in my joints—maybe polyarthrosis?—and this is one of the two blood tests I recently had done.
It all started with this weird, stuffy sensation, then it cleared up, only to come roaring back in less than a month.
Given what’s been said about how this specific value (or any other, really) doesn't necessarily point to arthritis, I'm honestly a bit lost on what this test is actually going to tell me.
Thanks so much.

Nicole Lee4 said:Given what’s been said—that this value, or any other, might not necessarily point to arthritis—I don't quite see the utility of the test itself.
Thanks a lot.

The question you've raised is an interesting one, though the answer is fairly complex. I'll keep this brief to avoid drifting off-topic.

Context is everything when testing for RF. There is a massive difference between running an RF test on a generally healthy individual presenting with minor joint pain—lacking inflammation or other markers of autoimmune disease—versus testing someone where there is already a high clinical suspicion of a rheumatic condition.

To put it simply, if an RF result comes back negative, the likelihood that the person is actually disease-free is relatively high (literature suggests upwards of 80%). However, that percentage shifts depending on the clinical picture—essentially, how likely it was that the patient had rheumatoid arthritis based on their symptoms and physical exam before the lab work even came back.

For instance, if a physician estimates a patient's baseline risk for rheumatoid arthritis at 10%, and then the RF test returns negative, that risk doesn't stay at 10%; it drops to roughly 3%. (Source: Shmerling RH, Delbanco TL, How useful is the rheumatoid factor? An analysis of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value).