{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024752475247524754, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006600660066006601, 'mean_word_length': 4.893203883495145, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reference change values may need some improvement but are invaluable tools in laboratory medicine

We thank Fuentes-Arderiu and colleagues for their thoughtful critique (1) of our strong advocacy of the use of reference change values (RCV) in a recent Mini Review (2) and accompanying Editorial (3) . They are right that the Mini Review has only one paragraph specifi cally devoted to the potential disadvantages of RCV, but the material following did address many of these concerns. Some additional concerns that they have regarding the value of RCV were listed (1) and will be addressed in this response.