Comparison of methods of optimal cut-point selection for biomarkers in diagnostic medicine: a simulation study with application of clinical data in health informatics.
{"title":"Comparison of methods of optimal cut-point selection for biomarkers in diagnostic medicine: a simulation study with application of clinical data in health informatics.","authors":"Mojtaba Hassanzad, Karimollah Hajian-Tilaki, Zinatossadat Bouzari, Shahla Yazdani","doi":"10.1186/s13104-025-07245-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Several methods of cut-point selection for biomarkers have been suggested in biomedical research but the superiority of them over others was not studied comprehensively under different pairs of distributions, degree of overlap, and the ratio of sample sizes. This simulation study was aimed to compare five popular methods with application of clinical examples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The data of simulation was generated from the 12 configurations of binormal, bigamma, and biexponential pairs with different sample sizes The results showed that the four popular methods of Youden, Euclidean, Product, and Index of Union (IU) yielded identical optimal cut-point under binormal model with homoscedastic. While, with high AUC, the Youden may produce less bias and MSE, but for moderate and low AUC, Euclidean has less bias and MSE than other methods. The IU yielded more precise findings than the Youden for moderate and low AUC in binormal pairs, but its performance was lower with skewed distributions. In contrast, the cut-points produced by diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were extremely high with low sensitivity and high MSE and bias. The results of clinical data showed that when AUC > 0.95, the five methods may produce identical cut-point, but DOR yields an extremely high value of cut-point for AUC < 0.95.</p>","PeriodicalId":9234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Research Notes","volume":"18 1","pages":"193"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12020263/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Research Notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-025-07245-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Several methods of cut-point selection for biomarkers have been suggested in biomedical research but the superiority of them over others was not studied comprehensively under different pairs of distributions, degree of overlap, and the ratio of sample sizes. This simulation study was aimed to compare five popular methods with application of clinical examples.
Results: The data of simulation was generated from the 12 configurations of binormal, bigamma, and biexponential pairs with different sample sizes The results showed that the four popular methods of Youden, Euclidean, Product, and Index of Union (IU) yielded identical optimal cut-point under binormal model with homoscedastic. While, with high AUC, the Youden may produce less bias and MSE, but for moderate and low AUC, Euclidean has less bias and MSE than other methods. The IU yielded more precise findings than the Youden for moderate and low AUC in binormal pairs, but its performance was lower with skewed distributions. In contrast, the cut-points produced by diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were extremely high with low sensitivity and high MSE and bias. The results of clinical data showed that when AUC > 0.95, the five methods may produce identical cut-point, but DOR yields an extremely high value of cut-point for AUC < 0.95.
BMC Research NotesBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
363
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍:
BMC Research Notes publishes scientifically valid research outputs that cannot be considered as full research or methodology articles. We support the research community across all scientific and clinical disciplines by providing an open access forum for sharing data and useful information; this includes, but is not limited to, updates to previous work, additions to established methods, short publications, null results, research proposals and data management plans.