. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: Crit Care Med. 2013 May;41(5):10.1097/CCM.0b013e318277131c. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318277131c

Table 4.

Comparison of microarray and nanoString^™ DFR to established clinical predictor models of outcome with corresponding area under the curves (AUC) and their 95% confidence interval values for each multivariable model.

Complicated/intermediate vs. uncomplicated
Variable	AUC (95% CI)
nanoString^™ DFR	0.784 (0.702, 0.867)
Microarray DFR	0.801 (0.721, 0.88)
APACHE II	0.729 (0.637, 0.82)
ISS	0.65 (0.544, 0.756)
NISS	0.638 (0.531, 0.744)
APACHE II+ISS Model	0.75 (0.655, 0.844)
APACHE II+ISS Model+nanoString DFR Model	0.819 (0.742, 0.896)

Complicated vs. uncomplicated/intermediate
Variable	AUC (95% CI)
nanoString^™ DFR	0.811 (0.729, 0.893)
Microarray DFR	0.625 (0.514, 0.736)
APACHE II	0.6 (0.49, 0.709)
ISS	0.621 (0.512, 0.729)
NISS	0.587 (0.477, 0.697)
APACHE II+ISS Model	0.659 (0.56,0.757)
APACHE II+ISS Model+nanoString DFR Model	0.811 (0.731,0.892)