ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Development and evaluation of methods of clinical utility-based cut-point selection of diagnostic biomarkers: an analysis based on population-level parametric distributions of test results with application of clinical diagnostic data.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Early Peri-Admission Lactate-to-Albumin (LAR), C-Reactive Protein-to-Albumin (CAR), and Procalcitonin-to-Albumin (PAR) Ratios and ICU Mortality in a Tertiary Cardiac ICU.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Admission-measured C-reactive Protein-to-albumin Ratio as a Predictive Marker for Hospital-acquired Infections in Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Current neurovascular research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe cut-point selection of biomarkers based on clinical benefit of test results rather than accuracy-based is of interest for decision makers. We adapted the four methods of cut-point selection based on clinical utility of test results including Youden, Product, Union and the absolute difference of total utility with 2 times of AUC.
methodsThe population-based parametric pairs of distributions of test results comprising homoscedastic binormal model, non-homoscedastic binormal, bigamma and biexponential included in the study. For each pair of distributions for diseased and non-diseased the utility-based metrics of cut-point were calculated under different degrees of AUC and prevalence. The prevalence was varied from 0.01 to 0.05, 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50.
resultsFor a low prevalence as low as 0.01, the two methods of Product, and Union that maximize and minimize the related metrics respectively yield rather similar a true value of cut-point but the Youden-based utility metrics suggest rather similarly the true value of for an optimal cut-point. In opposition, the Youden-based utility metric and the absolute difference of total utility with 2 times of AUC produce extremely high value for optimal cut-point because of their s-shaped metrics over various cut-off values. As prevalence increases to 10% or more, the metric of Youden -based utility becomes concave and its cut-point becomes closer to other methods. The four proposed methods yield roughly identical cut-point at prevalence of 10% or more for high accuracy of 0.90. The greater discrepancy of optimal cut-point was shown in skew distributions of bigamma and biexponential with low prevalence and low AUC. For prevalence < 10%, the utility-based produces larger cut-point than accuracy-based methods in our clinical data for CRP. The methods of utility-based cut-point selection were explained by CRP in predicting preeclampsia, and other clinical data.
conclusionThe inconsistency of optimal cut-points is possible by different methods of utility-based criteria depending on the prevalence and degree of AUC. For high AUC, and prevalence > 10%, the four proposed methods yield rather identical optimal cut-points. Further studies of simulation are needed to evaluate the bias and sampling variability of utility-based of cut-point selection.
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.