ArticlePloS one2016
Interval of Uncertainty: An Alternative Approach for the Determination of Decision Thresholds, with an Illustrative Application for the Prediction of Prostate Cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Step width variability as a discriminator of age-related gait changes.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2020Pooled it
- ACCREDIT: Validation of clinical score for progression of COVID-19 while hospitalized.Global epidemiology · 2025Article
- Inequalities and age-period-cohort effects of global and regional burden for interstitial lung disease and pulmonary sarcoidosis: based on Global Burden of Disease study 2021.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Missing values and inconclusive results in diagnostic studies - A scoping review of methods.Statistical methods in medical research · 2023Article
- Measurement of Uncertainty in Prediction of No-Reflow Phenomenon after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Systemic Immune Inflammation Index: The Gray Zone Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Developing a clinical decision tool based on electroretinogram to monitor the risk of severe mental illness.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Optimal threshold of the prostate health index in predicting aggressive prostate cancer using predefined cost-benefit ratios and prevalence.International urology and nephrology · 2020Article
- The Clinical Relevance of Methods for Handling Inconclusive Medical Test Results: Quantification of Uncertainty in Medical Decision-Making and Screening.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Impact of the Prevalence of Cognitive Impairment on the Accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment: The Advantage of Using two MoCA Thresholds to Identify Error-prone Test Scores.Alzheimer disease and associated disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Often, for medical decisions based on test scores, a single decision threshold is determined and the test results are dichotomized into positive and negative diagnoses. It is therefore important to identify the decision threshold with the least number of misclassifications. The proposed method uses trichotomization: it defines an Uncertain Interval around the point of intersection between the two distributions of individuals with and without the targeted disease. In this Uncertain Interval the diagnoses are intermixed and the numbers of correct and incorrect diagnoses are (almost) equal. This Uncertain Interval is considered to be a range of test scores that is inconclusive and does not warrant a decision. It is expected that defining such an interval with some precision, prevents a relatively large number of false decisions, and therefore results in an increased accuracy or correct classifications rate (CCR) for the test scores outside this Uncertain Interval. Clinical data and simulation results confirm this. The results show that the CCR is systematically higher outside the Uncertain Interval when compared to the CCR of the decision threshold based on the maximized Youden index. For strong tests with a very small overlap between the two distributions, it can be difficult to determine an Uncertain Interval. In simulations, the comparison with an existing method for test-score trichotomization, the Two-graph Receiver Operating Characteristic (TG-ROC), showed smaller differences between the two distributions for the Uncertain Interval than for TG-ROC's Intermediate Range and consequently a more improved CCR outside the Uncertain Interval. The main conclusion is that the Uncertain Interval method offers two advantages: 1. Identification of patients for whom the test results are inconclusive; 2. A higher estimated rate of correct decisions for the remaining patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.