{"doi":"10.4103/0974-2727.154780","title":"A Leap above Friedewald Formula for Calculation of Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol","abstract":"<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title><jats:p>\n          Purpose: The purpose was to compare the different calculated methods of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) estimation and to determine which of them correlate best with the direct method.</jats:p><jats:p>\n          Materials and Methods: The records of 480 samples for lipid profile were analyzed. Apart from the direct method, LDL-C was calculated by Friedewald low-density lipoprotein cholesterol method (F-LDL-C), modified Friedewald low-density lipoprotein cholesterol method (MF-LDL-C), and Anandaraja low-density lipoprotein cholesterol method (A-LDL-C). Paired t-test and Pearson correlation were evaluated between the different methods. Degree of agreement between the calculated methods and direct method was detected by Bland-Altman graphical plots.</jats:p><jats:p>\n          Results: A strong correlation was found between all calculated LDL-C methods and direct low-density lipoprotein cholesterol method (D-LDL-C) assay, that is, F-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C = 0.94; A-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C = 0.93 and MF-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C = 0.95. No statistically significant difference was found between D-LDL-C and MF-LDL-C. Bland-Altman plot for MF-LDL-C showed minimal negative bias.</jats:p><jats:p>\n          Conclusions: The study pointed out that MF-LDL-C correlated maximally with D-LDL-C estimation at all levels of triglycerides and MF-LDL-C can be used in place of D-LDL-C when the direct method cannot be afforded.</jats:p>","journal":"Journal of Laboratory Physicians","year":2015,"id":659023,"datarank":0.5676284450877392,"base_score":3.784189633918261,"endowment":3.784189633918261,"self_citation_contribution":0.5676284450877392,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.5676284450877392,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":43,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1720378,"name":"Montosh Chakraborty","orcid":null,"position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1720380,"name":"Navpreet Singh","orcid":null,"position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1720376,"name":"Reema Kapoor","orcid":null,"position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"A Leap above Friedewald Formula for Calculation of Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol","abstract":"<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title><jats:p>\n          Purpose: The purpose was to compare the different calculated methods of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) estimation and to determine which of them correlate best with the direct method.</jats:p><jats:p>\n          Materials and Methods: The records of 480 samples for lipid profile were analyzed. Apart from the direct method, LDL-C was calculated by Friedewald low-density lipoprotein cholesterol method (F-LDL-C), modified Friedewald low-density lipoprotein cholesterol method (MF-LDL-C), and Anandaraja low-density lipoprotein cholesterol method (A-LDL-C). Paired t-test and Pearson correlation were evaluated between the different methods. Degree of agreement between the calculated methods and direct method was detected by Bland-Altman graphical plots.</jats:p><jats:p>\n          Results: A strong correlation was found between all calculated LDL-C methods and direct low-density lipoprotein cholesterol method (D-LDL-C) assay, that is, F-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C = 0.94; A-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C = 0.93 and MF-LDL-C versus D-LDL-C = 0.95. No statistically significant difference was found between D-LDL-C and MF-LDL-C. Bland-Altman plot for MF-LDL-C showed minimal negative bias.</jats:p><jats:p>\n          Conclusions: The study pointed out that MF-LDL-C correlated maximally with D-LDL-C estimation at all levels of triglycerides and MF-LDL-C can be used in place of D-LDL-C when the direct method cannot be afforded.</jats:p>","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":0.0,"endowment":0.0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"25949053","pmcid":"PMC4411803","openalex_id":null,"authors":[],"funders":[],"total_grants":0,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[],"oa_status":"gold","license":"cc-by-nc-nd","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-2727.154780","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"http://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/pdf/10.4103/0974-2727.154780.pdf","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://doaj.org/article/6452da87fa734f7c9b58990045456381","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4411803","host_type":"Europe_PMC"}],"fields_of_study":[],"mesh_terms":[],"keywords":["Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol","Anandaraja","Friedewald","Modified Friedewald"],"sdg_mappings":[],"linked_datasets":[],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-08-12T06:01:08.534177Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}