IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0176231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determining the optimal number and location of cutoff points with application to data of cervical cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Chung Chang
  • Meng-Ke Hsieh
  • Wen-Yi Chang
  • An Jen Chiang
  • Jiabin Chen

Abstract

It is often helpful to classify biomarker values into groups of different risk levels to facilitate evaluation of a biological, physiological, or pathological state. Stratification of patients into two risk groups is commonly seen, but there is always need for more than two groups for fine assessment. So far, there are no standard methods or tools to help decide how many cutoff points are optimal. In this study, we developed a comprehensive package that included methods to determine both the optimal number and locations of cutoff points for both survival data and dichotomized outcome. We illustrated workflow of this package with data from 797 patients with cervical cancer. By analyzing several risk factors of cervical cancer such as tumor size, body mass index (BMI), number of lymph nodes involved and depth of stromal invasion, in relation to survival and clinical outcome such as lymph nodal metastasis and lymphovascular invasion, we demonstrated that the best choice for BMI and stromal invasion was two cutoff points and one for the others. This study provided a useful tool to facilitate medical decisions and the analyses on cervical cancer may also be of interest to gynecologists. The package can be freely downloaded.

Suggested Citation

  • Chung Chang & Meng-Ke Hsieh & Wen-Yi Chang & An Jen Chiang & Jiabin Chen, 2017. "Determining the optimal number and location of cutoff points with application to data of cervical cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0176231
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176231
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176231&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0176231?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0176231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.