Comparison of methods of optimal cut-point selection for biomarkers in diagnostic medicine: a simulation study with application of clinical data in health informatics.

IF 1.6 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Mojtaba Hassanzad, Karimollah Hajian-Tilaki, Zinatossadat Bouzari, Shahla Yazdani
{"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.

诊断医学中生物标志物最佳切入点选择方法的比较:临床数据在健康信息学中的应用模拟研究。
目的:生物医学研究中提出了几种生物标志物切点选择方法,但在不同的对分布、重叠程度和样本量比例下,没有对这些方法的优越性进行全面研究。本模拟研究旨在比较五种常用的方法与临床实例的应用。结果:对12种不同样本量的双正态、双正态和双指数对进行了模拟,结果表明,在均方差的双正态模型下,常用的约登法、欧氏法、乘积法和联合指数法(IU)得到了相同的最优切点。而在高AUC下,约登法产生的偏置和均方误差较小,而在中、低AUC下,欧几里得法的偏置和均方误差小于其他方法。对于中等和低AUC的双正态分布,IU比Youden得出更精确的结果,但在偏态分布中,其表现较低。相比之下,诊断优势比(DOR)产生的切点非常高,灵敏度低,MSE和偏倚高。临床资料结果显示,当AUC > 0.95时,五种方法可能产生相同的切割点,但DOR对AUC的切割点值极高
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Research Notes
BMC Research Notes Biochemistry, 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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信