The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Optimal Cut-point and Its Corresponding Youden Index to Discriminate Individuals Using Pooled Blood Samples
Abstract
Costs can hamper the evaluation of the effectiveness of new biomarkers. Analysis of smaller numbers of pooled specimens has been shown to be a useful cost-cutting technique. The Youden index (J), a function of sensitivity (q) and specificity (p), is a commonly used measure of overall diagnostic effectiveness. More importantly, J is the maximum vertical distance or difference between the ROC curve and the diagonal or chance line; it occurs at the cut-point that optimizes the biomarker's differentiating ability when equal weight is given to sensitivity and specificity. Using the additive property of the gamma and normal distributions, we present a method to estimate the Youden index and the optimal cut-point, and extend its applications to pooled samples. We study the effect of pooling when only a fixed number of individuals are available for testing, and pooling is carried out to save on the number of assays. We measure loss of information by the change in root mean squared error of the estimates of the optimal cut-point and the Youden index, and we study the extent of this loss via a simulation study. In conclusion, pooling can result in a substantial cost reduction while preserving the effectiveness of estimators, especially when the pool size is not very large.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Chicco, D., Tötsch, N., & Jurman, G. (2021) · BioData Mining · doi:10.1186/s13040-021-00244-z · Cited by 893
Defining an Optimal Cut-Point Value in ROC Analysis: An Alternative Approach
Unal, I. (2017) · Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine · doi:10.1155/2017/3762651 · Cited by 789
Miller, R., Plessow, F., Kirschbaum, C., & Stalder, T. (2013) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/psy.0000000000000002 · Cited by 376
Hanson, J., Yang, Y., Paliwal, K., & Zhou, Y. (2017) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btw678 · Cited by 292
Predictive Significance of Tissue Eosinophilia for Nasal Polyp Recurrence in the Chinese Population
Lou, H., Meng, Y., Piao, Y., Wang, C., Zhang, L., & Bachert, C. (2015) · American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy · doi:10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4231 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Schisterman, E. F., Perkins, N. J., Liu, A., & Bondell, H.
- Venue
- Epidemiology
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 73-81
- ISSN
- 1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055472916
- Cited by
- 1,185
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Optimal Cut-point and Its Corresponding Youden Index to Discriminate Individuals Using Pooled Blood Samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ede.0000147512.81966.ba
- The paper
- Schisterman, E. F., Perkins, N. J., Liu, A., & Bondell, H. (2005). Optimal Cut-point and Its Corresponding Youden Index to Discriminate Individuals Using Pooled Blood Samples. Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000147512.81966.ba
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.