Table 2.
ID | Model | Number of parameters | AIC1 | AUC2 | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Effective distance only | 1 | 464.1 | 0.95 (0.54,1.00) | 100.0 (88.3, 100.0) | 79.6 (74.0, 85.2) |
2 | Effective distance + religion | 2 | 461.2 | 0.87 (0.46, 1.00) | 100.0 (88.3, 100.0) | 69.2 (62.8, 75.5) |
3 | Effective distance + incidence | 1 | 357.2 | 0.95 (0.54, 1.00) | 100.0 (88.3, 100.0) | 79.6 (74.0, 85.2) |
4 | All pieces of information | 2 | 354.7 | 0.87 (0.46, 1.00) | 100.0 (88.3, 100.0) | 69.2 (62.8, 75.5) |
95 % confidence intervals (CI) are given in parenthesis. 1. AIC, Akaike information criterion [30]. Note that the data used for parameterizing models 1 and 2 were different from those used for models 3 and 4, and thus, the comparison can be made only between models 1 and 2 and between models 3 and 4, respectively; 2. AUC, area under the curve, derived from the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve [31] to predict the risk of importing a MERS case