Optimal ranges are often a best guess

One thing I've learned working on lab ranges is how many of the "optimal ranges" in our field are a best guess. The standard reference range tells you where most people fall, which isn't the same as where you'd want to be, so the idea of an optimal range makes sense. The trouble is that some of those ranges are backed by good outcome data, and others started as one person's opinion and got repeated until they looked settled. On a printed report they look exactly the same. I don't think the answer is throwing them out, since a thoughtful target is still more useful than "normal." I'd just like us to be more open about which ones are which. When I look at a range now, the first thing I want to know is where it came from and what outcome it's tied to. If nobody can answer that, I treat it as someone's opinion and weigh it that way.