Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Mar 24.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Stat Assoc. 2013 Dec 19;108(504):1173–1188. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2013.810149

Table 4.

Comparison of the S1- and S2-based tripartite rules. The optimal cut-off points based on S1 are transformed back to the original scale of CD4 count. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

λ φ cut-off points
FNR FPR R3 TMR
lower upper
S1 .25 .00 17 (17) 17 (17) .98 (.02) .00 (.00) .06 (.01) .24 (.02)
.15 17 (9) 201 (18) .72 (.04) .00 (.00) .04 (.00) .18 (.01)
.30 17 (13) 284 (13) .46 (.04) .00 (.00) .03 (.00) .12 (.01)
.50 .00 120 (64) 120 (64) .93 (.12) .03 (.04) .12 (.01) .26 (.02)
.15 90 (16) 216 (39) .63 (.06) .02 (.01) .08 (.01) .17 (.01)
.30 17 (15) 284 (32) .45 (.04) .01 (.01) .05 (.01) .12 (.01)
.75 .00 302 (45) 302 (45) .43 (.06) .26 (.06) .13 (.01) .30 (.04)
.15 216 (51) 317 (50) .40 (.07) .13 (.06) .10 (.01) .20 (.04)
.30 226 (67) 417 (81) .30 (.07) .14 (.06) .08 (.01) .18 (.04)

S2 .25 .00 .64 (.04) .64 (.04) .91 (.04) .01 (.00) .06 (.00) .23 (.01)
.15 .39 (.01) .75 (.04) .62 (.04) .00 (.00) .04 (.00) .16 (.01)
.30 .29 (.01) .71 (.04) .42 (.04) .00 (.00) .03 (.00) .11 (.01)
.50 .00 .53 (.07) .53 (.07) .79 (.08) .04 (.02) .11 (.01) .23 (.01)
.15 .37 (.01) .66 (.06) .60 (.05) .01 (.01) .07 (.01) .16 (.01)
.30 .28 (.01) .67 (.06) .43 (.04) .01 (.01) .05 (.01) .11 (.01)
.75 .00 .26 (.04) .26 (.04) .35 (.08) .30 (.08) .12 (.01) .31 (.04)
.15 .26 (.04) .34 (.05) .32 (.08) .21 (.07) .09 (.01) .24 (.03)
.30 .19 (.03) .34 (.08) .25 (.06) .13 (.05) .07 (.01) .16 (.03)