Table 4.
Reclassification table comparing the RF-CL and CACS-CL models.
| Risk groups by CACS-CL model | Reclassificationa | NRIb | p | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | Total | Up | Down | |||
| Risk groups by RF-CL model | |||||||
| Negative patients | 1.29% | 25.39% | 34.32% | <0.0001 | |||
| Low | 455 | 9 | 464 | ||||
| High | 177 | 56 | 233 | ||||
| Total | 632 | 65 | 697 | ||||
| Positive patientsc | 11.13% | 0.91% | |||||
| Low | 57 | 61 | 118 | ||||
| High | 5 | 425 | 438 | ||||
| Total | 62 | 486 | 548 | ||||
RF-CL, risk factor-weighted clinical likelihood; CACS-CL, coronary artery calcium score-weighted clinical likelihood; CAD, coronary artery disease.
The classification of patients by the CACS-CL model was compared with that by the RF-CL model.
NRI = [P(Up | Positive) − P(Down | Positive)] − [ P(Up | Negative) − P(Down | Negative)].
A positive patient was defined as a patient who had obstructive CAD.