Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2025

12:18
A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
Published on: January 11, 2020
7.5K
Data-Driven Cutoff Selection for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Depression Screening Tool
Brooke Levis1,2, Parash Mani Bhandari1, Dipika Neupane1
1Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
JAMA Network Open
|November 22, 2024
Summary
Using small datasets to set optimal cutoff scores for the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) can lead to inaccurate results. This study shows that data-driven methods yield different cutoff scores and biased accuracy estimates compared to population-level data.
Area of Science:
- Psychometrics
- Medical Informatics
- Biostatistics
Background:
- Test accuracy studies often use small datasets for simultaneous optimal cutoff score selection and accuracy estimation.
- This approach can lead to deviations from population-level optimal scores and biased accuracy estimates.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate how data-driven methods for simultaneously selecting an optimal Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) cutoff score and estimating accuracy affect results.
- Specifically, to assess differences in optimal cutoff scores and accuracy estimates compared to population-level values.
Main Methods:
- Utilized cross-sectional data from an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) database for PHQ-9 screening accuracy.
- Resampled 1000 studies (N=100, 200, 500, 1000) from the IPDMA population to simulate smaller datasets.
- Selected optimal cutoff scores using the Youden index and compared accuracy estimates with the full population data.
Main Results:
- Optimal cutoff scores in simulated studies varied significantly (e.g., 2+ to 21+ in N=100 samples) compared to the population optimum (8+).
- The true optimal cutoff score (8+) was identified in only 17% of N=100 samples and 33% of N=1000 samples.
- Sensitivity was overestimated in smaller samples (e.g., 6.4 percentage points in N=100), while specificity remained largely unaffected.
Conclusions:
- Simultaneously selecting optimal cutoff scores and estimating accuracy using data-driven methods on small datasets leads to substantial differences from population values.
- Diagnostic accuracy evidence derived from inadequately powered studies or meta-analyses should be interpreted with caution.
- Recommendations for cutoff scores require robust evidence from adequately powered research or well-conducted meta-analyses.

