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

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.

[1]  Enrique F Schisterman,et al.  The Youden Index and the Optimal Cut‐Point Corrected for Measurement Error , 2005, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[2]  R. Gaiser,et al.  Circulating Angiogenic Factors and the Risk of Preeclampsia , 2005 .

[3]  N. Perkins,et al.  Optimal Cut-point and Its Corresponding Youden Index to Discriminate Individuals Using Pooled Blood Samples , 2005, Epidemiology.

[4]  Enrique F Schisterman,et al.  Adjusting the generalized ROC curve for covariates , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  David Faraggi,et al.  Adjusting receiver operating characteristic curves and related indices for covariates , 2003 .

[6]  M. Pepe The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction , 2003 .

[7]  M. Bronner,et al.  DNA fingerprinting abnormalities can distinguish ulcerative colitis patients with dysplasia and cancer from those who are dysplasia/cancer-free. , 2003, The American journal of pathology.

[8]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine , 2002 .

[9]  G. Belle Statistical rules of thumb , 2002 .

[10]  G Germano,et al.  Quantitative analysis of regional motion and thickening by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT: normal heterogeneity and criteria for abnormality. , 2001, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[11]  E F Schisterman,et al.  TBARS and Cardiovascular Disease in a Population-Based Sample , 2001, Journal of cardiovascular risk.

[12]  M. Greiner,et al.  Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. , 2000, Preventive veterinary medicine.

[13]  Seymour Geisser,et al.  Comparing two tests used for diagnostic or screening purposes , 1998 .

[14]  M. Coffin,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic studies and measurement errors. , 1997, Biometrics.

[15]  J Hilden,et al.  Regret graphs, diagnostic uncertainty and Youden's Index. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  M. O'Brecht,et al.  Evaluating medical tests: Objective and quantitative guidelines , 1995 .

[17]  M. Zweig,et al.  Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. , 1993, Clinical chemistry.

[18]  W. Youden,et al.  Index for rating diagnostic tests , 1950, Cancer.