Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38331732›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024

Estimating cutoff values for diagnostic tests to achieve target specificity using extreme value theory.

Sierra Pugh, Bailey K Fosdick, Mary Nehring, Emily N Gallichotte, Sue VandeWoude, Ander Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sierra PughDepartment of Statistics, Colorado State University, 102 Statistics Building, Fort Collins, 80523, Colorado, USA.
Bailey K FosdickDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Mary NehringDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Emily N GallichotteDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Sue VandeWoudeDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Ander WilsonDepartment of Statistics, Colorado State University, 102 Statistics Building, Fort Collins, 80523, Colorado, USA. ander.wilson@colostate.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapidly developing tests for emerging diseases is critical for early disease monitoring. In the early stages of an epidemic, when low prevalences are expected, high specificity tests are desired to avoid numerous false positives. Selecting a cutoff to classify positive and negative test results that has the desired operating characteristics, such as specificity, is challenging for new tests because of limited validation data with known disease status. While there is ample statistical literature on estimating quantiles of a distribution, there is limited evidence on estimating extreme quantiles from limited validation data and the resulting test characteristics in the disease testing context.

methodsWe propose using extreme value theory to select a cutoff with predetermined specificity by fitting a Pareto distribution to the upper tail of the negative controls. We compared this method to five previously proposed cutoff selection methods in a data analysis and simulation study. We analyzed COVID-19 enzyme linked immunosorbent assay antibody test results from long-term care facilities and skilled nursing staff in Colorado between May and December of 2020.

resultsWe found the extreme value approach had minimal bias when targeting a specificity of 0.995. Using the empirical quantile of the negative controls performed well when targeting a specificity of 0.95. The higher target specificity is preferred for overall test accuracy when prevalence is low, whereas the lower target specificity is preferred when prevalence is higher and resulted in less variable prevalence estimation. DISCUSSION: While commonly used, the normal based methods showed considerable bias compared to the empirical and extreme value theory-based methods.

conclusionsWhen determining disease testing cutoffs from small training data samples, we recommend using the extreme value based-methods when targeting a high specificity and the empirical quantile when targeting a lower specificity.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineBiasHumansSensitivity and SpecificityAntibody testCut pointExtreme value theorySerologyThreshold

Identifiers

PMID38331732
PMCPMC10851584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.