{"id":2438,"date":"2025-04-08T16:52:01","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T05:52:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bornfree.life\/2024\/?p=2438"},"modified":"2026-10-28T12:48:31","modified_gmt":"2026-10-28T01:48:31","slug":"oligoscan-tool","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bornfree.life\/dev\/oligoscan-tool\/","title":{"rendered":"Oligoscan PDF Processor"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n

\n Oligoscan PDF Processor <\/h1><\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

<\/div>


<\/p>\n

\n\n
\n <\/span>\n
\n

Disclaimer<\/h2>\n

This unofficial analysis tool is a “best effort” to interpret Oligoscan PDF reports.
Example outputs for [page 1]<\/a> and [page 2]<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It can and will continue to evolve over time, and should never be taken as medical advice or a prescription.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n\n

\n
\n
\n <\/span>\n

Background<\/h2>\n <\/header>\n\n

Oligoscan provides a highly convenient way to estimate intracellular mineral data. However, there are currently a number of limitations that prevent the data from being used at face value, eg.<\/p>\n\n

    \n
  • Skin calcium and iron markers are not helpful in understanding systemic levels, as 99% of calcium is stored in skeletal tissue and 75% of iron is circulating.<\/li>\n
  • The standard lower and upper thresholds for indicating severe deficiencies are not sensitive enough.<\/li>\n
  • The Oligoscan practitioner’s handbook indicates certain mineral elevations need to be inverted and re-interpreted as “low”. My analysis of Oligoscan reports vs data obtained from simultaneous “white blood cell nutrients” testing suggests this should apply to a wider array of markers. Further analysis is needed.<\/li>\n
  • Helpful biochemistry details regarding specific deficiencies are not provided in the standard report.<\/li>\n <\/ul>\n\n
    \n Learn more \u2192<\/span><\/summary>\n
    \n

    In the future, it’s entirely possible the company behind Oligoscan may update their reports around these and other observations. In the meantime, you can either consult an Oligoscan practitioner to interpret your report, or use the tool below.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n <\/section>\n\n

    \n
    \n <\/span>\n

    Notes & known limitations<\/h2>\n <\/header>\n\n
      \n
    1. (2026-09-26) Now also works with multilingual SO\/Check, Oligocheck and BioCheck PRO reports (beta, needs further testing in multiple languages – please use the Feedback button if it doesn’t).<\/strong><\/li>\n
    2. Untested on Oligoscan reports generated in languages other than English and French, however should<\/em> support others…<\/li>\n
    3. This tool works reliably on the ORIGINAL EMAILED PDF results<\/strong> – photos and scanned images of these reports will trigger an attempt at OCR extraction (experimental)<\/em>, however this method can easily introduce errors, depending on image quality.<\/li>\n
    4. Uploading Oligoscan “comparison reports” will not work, however you can generate comparisons for up to 5 individual reports using this tool, using any combination of original (emailed, not-OCR’d) and\/or already processed reports (which may also include successfully OCR’d versions)<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    5. Output PDF reports have been simplified to show mineral results as deviation% from “ideal”. However, if you’d also like the raw data, it is contained in the optional CSV file.<\/li>\n
    6. As of v1.0.1, mineral test report data deviation% is now aligned to SO\/Check scaling.<\/li>\n
    7. As of v1.6.1, heavy metal report data deviation% is now aligned to SO\/Check scaling. This is automatically detected and accommodated in comparison reports.<\/strong><\/li>\n
    8. Customised branding, images and messages are now available for clinicians. Please use the enquiry form below for more information.<\/li>\n <\/ol>\n <\/section>\n <\/div>\n\n