Table 6.
Comparison with other methods.
| Methods | Accuracy (%) |
Sensitivity (%) |
Specificity (%) |
NPV (%) |
PPV (%) |
AUC(95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liu (14) | 66.79 | 73.05 | 61.35 | 67.88 | 67.65 | 0.6720 (0.5884, 0.7629) |
0.0572 |
| Zhang (16) | 70.00 | 70.87 | 68.89 | 69.52 | 70.90 | 0.6988 (0.6624, 0.7384) |
0.1207 |
| Jiang (17) | 70.36 | 76.29 | 63.69 | 72.13 | 70.32 | 0.6999 (0.6272, 0.7785) |
0.1065 |
| Zhou (15) | 72.50 | 82.14 | 62.35 | 76.92 | 70.81 | 0.7225 (0.6810, 0.7946) |
0.2494 |
| Ours | 76.43 | 71.41 | 80.36 | 74.16 | 81.74 | 0.7422 (0.6878, 0.7981) |
- |
Values in bold black font represent the best performance in each column.