21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using Monte Carlo technique

      research-article
      ,
      BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Using Monte Carlo simulations, we compare different methods (maximizing Youden index, maximizing mutual information, and logistic regression) for their ability to determine optimum binary cut-off thresholds for a ratio-scaled diagnostic test variable. Special attention is given to the stability and precision of the results in dependence on the distributional characteristics as well as the pre-test probabilities of the diagnostic categories in the test population.

          Methods

          Fictitious data sets of a ratio-scaled diagnostic test with different distributional characteristics are generated for 50, 100 and 200 fictitious “individuals” with systematic variation of pre-test probabilities of two diagnostic categories. For each data set, optimum binary cut-off limits are determined employing different methods. Based on these optimum cut-off thresholds, sensitivities and specificities are calculated for the respective data sets. Mean values and SD of these variables are computed for 1000 repetitions each.

          Results

          Optimizations of cut-off limits using Youden index and logistic regression-derived likelihood ratio functions with correct adaption for pre-test probabilities both yield reasonably stable results, being nearly independent from pre-test probabilities actually used. Maximizing mutual information yields cut-off levels decreasing with increasing pre-test probability of disease. The most precise results (in terms of the smallest SD) are usually seen for the likelihood ratio method. With this parametric method, however, cut-off values show a significant positive bias and, hence, specificities are usually slightly higher, and sensitivities are consequently slightly lower than with the two non-parametric methods.

          Conclusions

          In terms of stability and bias, Youden index is best suited for determining optimal cut-off limits of a diagnostic variable. The results of Youden method and likelihood ratio method are surprisingly insensitive against distributional differences as well as pre-test probabilities of the two diagnostic categories. As an additional bonus of the parametric procedure, transfer of the likelihood ratio functions, obtained from logistic regression analysis, to other diagnostic scenarios with different pre-test probabilities is straightforward.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-014-0099-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Beyond diagnostic accuracy: the clinical utility of diagnostic tests.

          Like any other medical technology or intervention, diagnostic tests should be thoroughly evaluated before their introduction into daily practice. Increasingly, decision makers, physicians, and other users of diagnostic tests request more than simple measures of a test's analytical or technical performance and diagnostic accuracy; they would also like to see testing lead to health benefits. In this last article of our series, we introduce the notion of clinical utility, which expresses--preferably in a quantitative form--to what extent diagnostic testing improves health outcomes relative to the current best alternative, which could be some other form of testing or no testing at all. In most cases, diagnostic tests improve patient outcomes by providing information that can be used to identify patients who will benefit from helpful downstream management actions, such as effective treatment in individuals with positive test results and no treatment for those with negative results. We describe how comparative randomized clinical trials can be used to estimate clinical utility. We contrast the definition of clinical utility with that of the personal utility of tests and markers. We show how diagnostic accuracy can be linked to clinical utility through an appropriate definition of the target condition in diagnostic-accuracy studies. © 2012 American Association for Clinical Chemistry
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying the accuracy of a diagnostic test or marker.

            In recent years, increasing focus has been directed to the methodology for evaluating (new) tests or biomarkers. A key step in the evaluation of a diagnostic test is the investigation into its accuracy. We reviewed the literature on how to assess the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Accuracy refers to the amount of agreement between the results of the test under evaluation (index test) and the results of a reference standard or test. The generally recommended approach is to use a prospective cohort design in patients who are suspected of having the disease of interest, in which each individual undergoes the index and same reference standard tests. This approach presents several challenges, including the problems that can arise with the verification of the index test results by the preferred reference standard test, the choice of cutoff value in case of a continuous index test result, and the determination of how to translate accuracy results to recommendations for clinical use. This first in a series of 4 reports presents an overview of the designs of single-test accuracy studies and the concepts of specificity, sensitivity, posterior probabilities (i.e., predictive values) for the presence of target disease, ROC curves, and likelihood ratios, all illustrated with empirical data from a study on the diagnosis of suspected deep venous thrombosis. Limitations of the concept of the diagnostic accuracy for a single test are also highlighted. The prospective cohort design in patients suspected of having the disease of interest is the optimal approach to estimate the accuracy of a diagnostic test. However, the accuracy of a diagnostic index test is not constant but varies across different clinical contexts, disease spectrums, and even patient subgroups.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantifying the added value of a diagnostic test or marker.

              In practice, the diagnostic workup usually starts with a patient with particular symptoms or signs, who is suspected of having a particular target disease. In a sequence of steps, an array of diagnostic information is commonly documented. The diagnostic information conveyed by different results from patient history, physical examination, and subsequent testing is to varying extents overlapping and thus mutually dependent. This implies that the diagnostic potential of a test or biomarker is conditional on the information obtained from previous tests. A key question about the accuracy of a diagnostic test/biomarker is whether that test improves the diagnostic workup beyond already available diagnostic test results. This second report in a series of 4 gives an overview of several methods to quantify the added value of a new diagnostic test or biomarker, including the area under the ROC curve, net reclassification improvement, integrated discrimination improvement, predictiveness curve, and decision curve analysis. Each of these methods is illustrated with the use of empirical data. We reiterate that reporting on the relative increase in discrimination and disease classification is relevant to obtain insight into the incremental value of a diagnostic test or biomarker. We also recommend the use of decision-analytic measures to express the accuracy of an entire diagnostic workup in an informative way. © 2012 American Association for Clinical Chemistry
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                gilbert.reibnegger@medunigraz.at
                walter.schrabmair@medunigraz.at
                Journal
                BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
                BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
                BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6947
                25 November 2014
                25 November 2014
                2014
                : 14
                : 1
                : 99
                Affiliations
                Institute of Physiological Chemistry, Center of Physiological Medicine, Medical University of Graz, A-8010 Graz, Austria
                Article
                99
                10.1186/s12911-014-0099-1
                4253606
                25421000
                28a893a6-6091-4028-ad82-6240e12fa506
                © Reibnegger and Schrabmair; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 14 January 2014
                : 27 October 2014
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Bioinformatics & Computational biology
                Bioinformatics & Computational biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article