Skip to main content
. 2025 May 1;21(5):843–854. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.11560

Table 2.

Comparison of model performance predicting OSA risk in different machine learning techniques.

LR RF SVM XGBoost
AUROC (%) 97.2 96.0 91.6 96.7
(95% CI) (93.9–99.5) (91.7–99.2) (85.7–96.8) (92.4–99.5)
AUPRC (%) 97.0 95.3 91.9 95.7
(95% CI) (93.7–99.5) (91.0–99.1) (85.1–96.8) (92.4–99.5)
Sensitivity (%) 93.0 97.7 90.7 95.3
(95% CI) (85.9–97.6) (84.5–96.2) (75.9–90.9) (84.6–96.3)
Specificity (%) 90.7 83.7 76.7 86.0
(95% CI) (85.1–97.6) (84.9–96.3) (75.7–91.6) (84.2–96.4)
Accuracy (%) 91.9 90.7 83.7 90.7
(95% CI) (86.0–97.6) (84.8–96.3) (75.4–90.7) (84.5–96.4)
PPV (%) 90.9 85.7 79.6 87.2
(95% CI) (85.3–97.1) (84.6–96.3) (75.6–90.8) (84.4–96.5)
NPV (%) 92.9 97.3 89.2 94.9
(95% CI) (85.3–96.8) (84.4–96.4) (76.1–91.1) (84.5–96.5)
F1 score (%) 92.0 91.3 84.8 91.1
(95% CI) (85.5–96.8) (84.3–96.0) (76.0–91.1) (83.8–96.4)
Threshold 0.547 0.308 0.298 0.396

The F1 score is calculated by 2 × sensitivity × PPV/(sensitivity + PPV). AUROC = area under receiver operating characteristic, AUPRC = area under the precision–recall curve, CI = confidence interval, LR = logistic regression, NPV = negative predictive value, PPV = positive predictive value, RF = random forest, RUS = random undersampling, SVM = support vector machine, XGBoost = extreme gradient boosting.