Cargando…

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

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 st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reibnegger, Gilbert, Schrabmair, Walter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4253606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25421000
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-014-0099-1
_version_ 1782347264079953920
author Reibnegger, Gilbert
Schrabmair, Walter
author_facet Reibnegger, Gilbert
Schrabmair, Walter
author_sort Reibnegger, Gilbert
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4253606
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42536062014-12-05 Optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using Monte Carlo technique Reibnegger, Gilbert Schrabmair, Walter BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2014-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4253606/ /pubmed/25421000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-014-0099-1 Text en © 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.
spellingShingle Research Article
Reibnegger, Gilbert
Schrabmair, Walter
Optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using Monte Carlo technique
title Optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using Monte Carlo technique
title_full Optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using Monte Carlo technique
title_fullStr Optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using Monte Carlo technique
title_full_unstemmed Optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using Monte Carlo technique
title_short Optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using Monte Carlo technique
title_sort optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using monte carlo technique
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4253606/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25421000
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-014-0099-1
work_keys_str_mv AT reibneggergilbert optimumbinarycutoffthresholdofadiagnostictestcomparisonofdifferentmethodsusingmontecarlotechnique
AT schrabmairwalter optimumbinarycutoffthresholdofadiagnostictestcomparisonofdifferentmethodsusingmontecarlotechnique