Cited by 60Electrolyte and hormonal disordersClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology

Validation of equations used to predict plasma osmolality in a healthy adult cohort

Open access
Heavens, Kristen R, Kenefick, Robert W, Caruso, Elizabeth M, Spitz, Marissa G, Cheuvront, Samuel N·2014·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background Plasma osmometry and the osmol gap have long been used to provide clinicians with important diagnostic and prognostic patient information. Objective We compared different equations used for predicting plasma osmolality when its direct measurement was not practical or an osmol gap was of interest and identified the best performers. Design The osmolality of plasma was measured by using freezing point depression by microosmometer and osmolarity calculated from biosensor measures of select analytes according to the dictates of each formula tested. After a rigid analytic prescreen of 36 originally published equations, a bootstrap regression analysis was used to compare shrinkage and model agreement. Results Sixty healthy volunteers provided 163 plasma samples for analysis. Of 36 equations considered, 11 equations met the prescreen variables for the bootstrap regression analysis. Of the 11 equations, 8 equations met shrinkage and apparent model error thresholds, and 5 equations were deemed optimal with an original model osmol gap Conclusions The use of bootstrap regression provides a unique insight for osmolality prediction equation performance from a very large theoretical population of healthy people. Of the original 36 equations evaluated, 5 equations appeared optimal for the prediction of osmolality when its direct measurement was not practical or an osmol gap was of interest. Note that 4 of 5 optimal equations were derived from a nonhealthy population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3945/ajcn.114.091009

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heavens, K. R., Kenefick, R. W., Caruso, E. M., Spitz, M. G., & Cheuvront, S. N.
Affiliations
U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (US)
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
100
Issue
5
Pages
1252-1256
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102890070
Cited by
60
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Electrolyte and hormonal disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Keywords
plasma osmolality, equation validation, bootstrap regression, freezing point depression, healthy adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Height, Body Weight, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Osmolar Concentration, Plasma, Regression Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Linear Models, Young Adult, Healthy Volunteers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review