Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Nov 24.
Published in final edited form as: J Hepatol. 2021 Apr 12;75(2):424–434. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.03.013

Fig. 5. Combining the models with clinical parameters.

Fig. 5.

(A) Early time-point model adjusted for MELD and vasopressor use. (B) Late time-point model adjusted for MELD and vasopressor use. (C) Early time-point model performance (n = 177; AUC 0.83 [95% CI 0.78–0.89; p <0.0001*], pseudo r2 = 0.3396, HL statistic 6.83 [p = 0.56]). (D) Late time-point model performance (n = 149; AUC 0.91 [95% CI 0.86–0.96; p <0.0001*), pseudo r2 = 0.5290, HL statistic = 6.74 (p = 0.57)). (E,F) Comparing the early (E) and late (F) time-point models with clinical parameters integrated (with and without threshold values) to other commonly used outcome prediction models using the DeLong method. Statistical significance set as per Benjamini-Hochberg procedure with a false discovery rate of 0.05 (*p <0.026). ALFSGPI, Acute Liver Failure Study Group prognostic index; HL, Hosmer-Lemeshow; KCC, King’s College criteria; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; OR, odds ratio.