Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Cardiometabolic Risk and Diagnostic-Laboratory Reference-Range Disagreement in 794,811 Indian Insurance Applicants

View ORCID ProfileSaif Lakhani
doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.01.26354654
Saif Lakhani
University of California, Davis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Saif Lakhani
  • For correspondence: saiflakhani{at}gmail.com
  • Abstract
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

This study analyzes 794,811 digitized medical examina- tions from Indian life-insurance applicants, a working-age, urban-skewed demographic often undersampled by national surveys. The cohort exhibits a pronounced South-Asian car- diometabolic risk profile: among valid adult records, 41.9% met the criteria for dyslipidemia (driven heavily by low HDL and elevated triglycerides), and 61.4% met AHA 2017 crite- ria for stage 1 hypertension. However, canonicalizing this dataset across 33,244 diagnostic centers revealed significant heterogeneity in laboratory reference ranges. At the clinical prediabetes threshold of 110 mg/dL for fasting blood sugar, the record-pair disagreement rate across laboratories was 49.7%, with similar variance across other common tests. This structural inconsistency materially affects patient classi- fication and the tracking of disease prevalence, underscoring a critical need for the national standardization of laboratory reporting in India

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study is a retrospective secondary analysis of fully de-identified, aggregate administrative data. The underlying records, digitized medical examination reports from Indian life-insurance applicants, were collected by a commercial data-processing entity as part of routine insurance underwriting operations, not for research purposes. No data were collected by the investigator; the investigator received only a de-identified JSON corpus from which all directly identifying fields (patient name, date of birth, Aadhar card number, policy number, and laboratory contact information) had been excluded prior to transfer. Examination dates were generalized to month and year, and diagnostic laboratory names were replaced with deterministic pseudonyms. The investigator had no contact with any study subject, performed no intervention, and accessed no source documents (PDFs, OCR text, or extraction prompts). All reported results are aggregate statistics; no individual-level data appear in any output. Cross-tabulations were additionally screened against a k-anonymity threshold of 10, suppressing any subgroup smaller than 10 records. Because the data as received by the investigator do not constitute identifiable private information and the study involves no interaction or intervention with human subjects, the research meets the criteria for exemption under 45 CFR 46.104(d)(4) (secondary research for which consent is not required).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. Individual-level data cannot be released; the corpus is held under data-processing agreements that do not permit individual-level publication. Aggregate statistics and the canonicalization map are released alongside the preprint at https://tinyurl.com/2cs4w2u7.

https://tinyurl.com/2cs4w2u7

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 03, 2026.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cardiometabolic Risk and Diagnostic-Laboratory Reference-Range Disagreement in 794,811 Indian Insurance Applicants
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Cardiometabolic Risk and Diagnostic-Laboratory Reference-Range Disagreement in 794,811 Indian Insurance Applicants
Saif Lakhani
medRxiv 2026.06.01.26354654; doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.01.26354654
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Cardiometabolic Risk and Diagnostic-Laboratory Reference-Range Disagreement in 794,811 Indian Insurance Applicants
Saif Lakhani
medRxiv 2026.06.01.26354654; doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.01.26354654

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (576)
  • Allergy and Immunology (867)
  • Anesthesia (306)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (4480)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (449)
  • Dermatology (385)
  • Emergency Medicine (614)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1528)
  • Epidemiology (15276)
  • Forensic Medicine (31)
  • Gastroenterology (1133)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (6643)
  • Geriatric Medicine (671)
  • Health Economics (1006)
  • Health Informatics (4602)
  • Health Policy (1378)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1622)
  • Hematology (544)
  • HIV/AIDS (1275)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (15959)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1110)
  • Medical Education (626)
  • Medical Ethics (147)
  • Nephrology (674)
  • Neurology (6692)
  • Nursing (346)
  • Nutrition (1006)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (1152)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (961)
  • Oncology (3369)
  • Ophthalmology (988)
  • Orthopedics (370)
  • Otolaryngology (421)
  • Pain Medicine (437)
  • Palliative Medicine (131)
  • Pathology (668)
  • Pediatrics (1703)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (699)
  • Primary Care Research (717)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5494)
  • Public and Global Health (9284)
  • Radiology and Imaging (2223)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1375)
  • Respiratory Medicine (1201)
  • Rheumatology (598)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (720)
  • Sports Medicine (535)
  • Surgery (720)
  • Toxicology (100)
  • Transplantation (290)
  • Urology (266)