TABLE 2.
Performance of different models in training and test cohort.
| Model_group | AUC | AUC_CI_low | AUC_CI_high | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy |
| Clinical_train | 0.676 | 0.545 | 0.79 | 0.467 | 0.774 | 0.538 | 0.719 | 0.663 |
| Clinical_test | 0.644 | 0.4 | 0.848 | 0.375 | 0.654 | 0.25 | 0.773 | 0.588 |
| Image_train | 0.661 | 0.519 | 0.802 | 0.154 | 0.965 | 0.667 | 0.714 | 0.711 |
| Image_test | 0.579 | 0.356 | 0.827 | 0.4 | 0.917 | 0.667 | 0.786 | 0.765 |
| Combined_train | 0.97 | 0.937 | 0.997 | 0.769 | 0.965 | 0.909 | 0.902 | 0.904 |
| Combined_test | 0.908 | 0.783 | 1 | 0.9 | 0.917 | 0.818 | 0.957 | 0.912 |
The combined model shows superior performance across all metrics compared to clinical or image models alone, with notably higher AUC, sensitivity, and accuracy in both cohorts.