↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Optimum binary cut-off threshold of a diagnostic test: comparison of different methods using Monte Carlo technique
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12911-014-0099-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gilbert Reibnegger, Walter Schrabmair

Abstract

BackgroundUsing 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.MethodsFictitious 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.ResultsOptimizations 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Librarian 2 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,385,510
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,568
of 1,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,938
of 361,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#33
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,984 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.