The inconsistency of "optimal" cutpoints obtained using two criteria based on the receiver operating characteristic curve

被引:1403
作者
Perkins, NJ
Schisterman, EF
机构
[1] NICHHD, Div Epidemiol Stat & Prevent Res, Bethesda, MD 20852 USA
[2] American Univ, Dept Math & Stat, Washington, DC 20016 USA
关键词
area under curve; biological markers; cutpoints; data interpretation; statistical; epidemiologic methods; ROC curve; statistics; Youden index;
D O I
10.1093/aje/kwj063
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
The use of biomarkers is of ever-increasing importance in clinical diagnosis of disease. In practice, a cutpoint is required for dichotomizing naturally continuous biomarker levels to distinguish persons at risk of disease from those who are not. Two methods commonly used for establishing the "optimal" cutpoint are the point on the receiver operating characteristic curve closest to (0,1) and the Youden index, J. Both have sound intuitive interpretations-the point closest to perfect differentiation and the point farthest from none, respectively-and are generalizable to weighted sensitivity and specificity. Under the same weighting of sensitivity and specificity, these two methods identify the same cutpoint as "optimal" in certain situations but different cutpoints in others. In this paper, the authors examine situations in which the two criteria agree or disagree and show that J is the only "optimal" cutpoint for given weighting with respect to overall misclassification rates. A data-driven example is used to clarify and demonstrate the magnitude of the differences. The authors also demonstrate a slight alteration in the (0,1) criterion that retains its intuitive meaning while resulting in consistent agreement with J. In conclusion, the authors urge that great care be taken when establishing a biomarker cutpoint for clinical use.
引用
收藏
页码:670 / 675
页数:6
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
BARKAN N, 2001, THESIS U HAIFA, P69
[2]   DNA fingerprinting abnormalities can distinguish ulcerative colitis patients with dysplasia and cancer from those who are dysplasia/cancer-free [J].
Chen, R ;
Rabinovitch, PS ;
Crispin, DA ;
Emond, MJ ;
Koprowicz, KM ;
Bronner, MP ;
Brentnall, TA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 2003, 162 (02) :665-672
[3]   Receiver operating characteristic studies and measurement errors [J].
Coffin, M ;
Sukhatme, S .
BIOMETRICS, 1997, 53 (03) :823-837
[4]   Adjusting receiver operating characteristic curves and related indices for covariates [J].
Faraggi, D .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES D-THE STATISTICIAN, 2003, 52 :179-192
[5]   Comparing two tests used for diagnostic or screening purposes [J].
Geisser, S .
STATISTICS & PROBABILITY LETTERS, 1998, 40 (02) :113-119
[6]   Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests [J].
Greiner, M ;
Pfeiffer, D ;
Smith, RD .
PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE, 2000, 45 (1-2) :23-41
[7]  
Hilden J, 1996, STAT MED, V15, P969, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960530)15:10<969::AID-SIM211>3.0.CO
[8]  
2-9
[9]  
KRAEMER H. C., 1992, EVALUATING MED TESTS
[10]   Circulating angiogenic factors and the risk of preeclampsia [J].
Levine, RJ ;
Maynard, SE ;
Qian, C ;
Lim, KH ;
England, LJ ;
Yu, KF ;
Schisterman, EF ;
Thadhani, R ;
Sachs, BP ;
Epstein, FH ;
Sibai, BM ;
Sukhatme, VP ;
Karumanchi, SA .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2004, 350 (07) :672-683