Table 5.
ROC analysesn | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reference method/modela | New method/modelb | n c | Reclassification index, %f | IDI, %k | Men | Women | |||||||
Casesd | Non-casese | Netg | P nri h | Casesi | Non-casesj | I integr. l | P idi m | Δ AUCo | P p | Δ AUC | P | ||
Impaired fasting glucose (≥5.6 mmol/L = 100 mg/dL) | |||||||||||||
DXA | BIA InBodyq | 164 | 249 | −6% | 0.181 | −7% | 1% | −0.5% | 0.506 | −0.03 | 0.102 | −0.01 | 0.394 |
BMI | 191 | 276 | −2% | 0.727 | −4% | 2% | 0.3% | 0.723 | −0.04 | 0.286 | −0.02 | 0.394 | |
Estimater | 191 | 276 | −1% | 0.771 | −4% | 2% | 0.2% | 0.809 | −0.03 | 0.404 | −0.01 | 0.597 | |
BIA InBody | BMI | 164 | 249 | 2% | 0.752 | 1% | 0% | 0.2% | 0.796 | −0.01 | 0.888 | −0.01 | 0.744 |
Estimate | 164 | 249 | 1% | 0.769 | 1% | 1% | −0.1% | 0.882 | 0.00 | 0.890 | 0.00 | 0.981 | |
BMI | Estimate | 191 | 276 | 0% | 1.000 | 0% | 0% | −0.1% | 0.733 | 0.01 | 0.514 | 0.01 | 0.386 |
| |||||||||||||
Impaired fasting glucose (≥6.1 mmol/L = 110 mg/dL) | |||||||||||||
DXA | BIA InBody | 70 | 343 | −1% | 0.901 | −4% | 3% | 3.5% | 0.009 | −0.01 | 0.584 | 0.01 | 0.462 |
BMI | 80 | 387 | 6% | 0.394 | 3% | 4% | 3.2% | 0.009 | 0.00 | 0.900 | 0.00 | 0.918 | |
Estimate | 80 | 387 | 3% | 0.616 | 0% | 3% | 2.6% | 0.023 | 0.02 | 0.438 | 0.01 | 0.796 | |
BIA InBody | BMI | 70 | 343 | 7% | 0.341 | 6% | 1% | −0.7% | 0.609 | 0.02 | 0.648 | −0.02 | 0.504 |
Estimate | 70 | 343 | 2% | 0.754 | 1% | 1% | −1.5% | 0.205 | 0.04 | 0.253 | −0.01 | 0.799 | |
BMI | Estimate | 80 | 387 | −3% | 0.251 | −3% | -1% | −0.6% | 0.176 | 0.02 | 0.315 | 0.01 | 0.248 |
| |||||||||||||
Metabolic syndrome (AHA/NHBLI)s | |||||||||||||
DXA | BIA InBody | 144 | 268 | −4% | 0.400 | −6% | 2% | −0.7% | 0.691 | −0.03 | 0.120 | 0.01 | 0.625 |
BMI | 165 | 301 | 4% | 0.461 | 0% | 4% | 2.5% | 0.257 | −0.02 | 0.610 | 0.02 | 0.309 | |
Estimate | 165 | 301 | 3% | 0.519 | −1% | 4% | 1.7% | 0.407 | −0.02 | 0.466 | 0.02 | 0.329 | |
BIA InBody | BMI | 144 | 268 | 3% | 0.595 | 2% | 1% | 0.9% | 0.662 | 0.01 | 0.697 | 0.01 | 0.429 |
Estimate | 144 | 268 | 4% | 0.480 | 2% | 1% | 0.8% | 0.681 | 0.01 | 0.812 | 0.01 | 0.409 | |
BMI | Estimate | 165 | 301 | −1% | 0.577 | −1% | 0% | −0.7% | 0.252 | −0.01 | 0.622 | 0.00 | 0.958 |
aMethod of measurement, based on which participants are classified in categories of obesity.
bDifferent method of estimating obesity, the predictive power of which is compared to reference model/reference method.
cNumber of participants.
dNumber of participants that are positive with regard to respective outcome.
eNumber of participants that are negative with regard to respective outcome.
fPercentage improvement (+) or deterioration (−) in predictive power of new model compared to reference model. Categories of obesity/FM% as independent variable.
gNet reclassification of cases + net reclassification of non-cases. A positive number denotes increased predictive power for the new model.
hLikelihood of net reclassification index to be 0, that is, the new model showing no improvement/deterioration over reference model.
iNet reclassification of cases = percentage of cases reclassified by the new model into a higher risk category − percentage of cases reclassified by the new model into a lower risk category.
jNet reclassification of non-cases = percentage of non-cases reclassified by the new model into a lower risk category − percentage of non-cases reclassified by the new model into a higher risk category.
kIntegrated discrimination improvement (+) or deterioration (−) of new model compared to reference model. Categories of obesity/FM% as independent variable in an age-adjusted model.
lMean difference in predicted individual probabilities between cases and non-cases for two models. A positive number denotes increased predictive power for the new model.
mLikelihood of net reclassification index to be 0, that is, the new model showing no improvement/deterioration over reference model.
nMeasures of obesity (BMI/FM%) as continuous variable in a logistic regression model predicting respective outcomes.
oDifference in area under curve of receiver operating characteristic compared to reference method.
pProbability of 0-hypothesis (no difference).
qEstimation of FM% with bioimpedance device InBody (720) (Biospace, Korea).
rAnthropometry-based estimate; arithmetic mean of FM% estimations according to prediction methods Deurenberg et al. [12], Gallagher et al. [15], and Larsson et al. [14].
sDefinition of metabolic syndrome suggested by the common task force from the IDF and the American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (AHA/NHBLI) [17].