Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 4, 2025

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
Estimating cutoff values for diagnostic tests to achieve target specificity using extreme value theory
Sierra Pugh1, Bailey K Fosdick2, Mary Nehring3
1Department of Statistics, Colorado State University, 102 Statistics Building, Fort Collins, 80523, Colorado, USA.
Background:
Rapidly 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.
Methods:
We 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.
Results:
We 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.
Conclusions:
When 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.
Related Concept Videos
Critical Values
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test
Finding Critical Values for Chi-Square
Critical Region, Critical Values and Significance Level
In hypothesis testing, a sample statistic is converted to a test statistic using z, t, or chi-square distribution. A critical region is an area under the curve in probability distributions demarcated by the critical value. When the test statistic falls in this region, it suggests that the null hypothesis must be rejected. As this region contains all those values of the...
Quantifying and Rejecting Outliers: The Grubbs Test
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...

