Table 4.

(a) Radiomics models (LR, RF, and SVM) and clinical nomograms absolute AUC and their comparison are reported. The analysis was performed using features obtained using only T2 sequences. The significant value was set at p ≤ 0.05. (b) Radiomics models (LR and RF) and clinical nomograms absolute AUC and their comparison are reported. The analysis was performed using features obtained using only DWI sequences. The significant value was set at p ≤ 0.05. (c) Radiomics models (LR and RF) and clinical nomograms absolute AUC and their comparison are reported. The analysis was performed using features obtained using only ADC sequences. The significant value was set at p ≤ 0.05.

(a)
Model Comparison	AUC Radiomics Model	AUC Nomogram	Z-Score	p-Value
LR vs. Briganti	0.89	0.79	0.833	0.405
LR vs. Partin	0.89	0.78	1.117	0.264
LR vs. MSKCC	0.89	0.78	1.132	0.258
LR vs. YALE	0.89	0.78	1.123	0.262
RF vs. Briganti	0.78	0.79	−0.345	0.730
RF vs. Partin	0.78	0.78	0	1
RF vs. MSKCC	0.78	0.78	0	1
RF vs. YALE	0.78	0.78	0	1
SVM vs. Briganti	0.17	0.79	1248.94	<0.05
SVM vs. Partin	0.17	0.78	1221.28	<0.05
SVM vs. MSKCC	0.17	0.78	1221.64	<0.05
SVM vs. YALE	0.17	0.78	1221.46	<0.05
(b)
Model Comparison	AUC radiomics model	AUC nomogram	Z-Score	p -Value
RF vs. Briganti	0.89	0.79	2.00	0.0455
RF vs. Partin	0.89	0.78	2.20	0.0278
RF vs. MSKCC	0.89	0.78	2.20	0.0278
RF vs. YALE	0.89	0.78	2.20	0.0278
LR vs. Briganti	0.671	0.79	1.733	0.083
LR vs. Partin	0.671	0.78	1.546	0.122
LR vs. MSKCC	0.671	0.78	1.529	0.126
LR vs. YALE	0.671	0.78	1.507	0.132
(c)
Model Comparison	AUC radiomics model	AUC nomogram	Z-score	p-value
LR vs. Briganti	0.67	0.79	−0.439	0.661
LR vs. Partin	0.67	0.78	0.039	0.969
LR vs. MSKCC	0.67	0.78	−0.028	0.978
LR vs. YALE	0.67	0.78	0.065	0.948
RF vs. Briganti	0.67	0.80	−1.27	0.205
RF vs. Partin	0.67	0.78	−1.11	0.268
RF vs. MSKCC	0.67	0.78	−1.06	0.290
RF vs. YALE	0.67	0.78	−1.05	0.295