Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Sep 13.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016 Sep 1;17(12):1106–1113. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.07.015

Table 3.

Comparison Among Models Applied on the 4 Cohorts

AUC (95% CI)
ActiFE ELSA InCHIANTI TILDA
FRAT-up 0.562 (0.530–0.594) 0.699 (0.680–0.718) 0.636 (0.594–0.681) 0.685 (0.660–0.709)
Cohort-specific model fitted on ActiFE 0.574 (0.541–0.604) 0.566 (0.545–0.585) 0.549 (0.505–0.594) 0.559 (0.532–0.584)
Cohort-specific model fitted on ELSA 0.560 (0.527–0.593) 0.719 (0.698–0.739) 0.611 (0.570–0.654) 0.675 (0.648–0.704)
Cohort-specific model fitted on InCHIANTI 0.530 (0.501–0.559) 0.664 (0.644–0.681) 0.571 (0.520– 0.619) 0.633 (0.608–0.661)
Cohort-specific model fitted on TILDA 0.561 (0.527–0.592) 0.661 (0.642–0.678) 0.600 (0.558–0.647) 0.686 (0.660–0.710)

The discriminative ability is quantified with AUC (95% CI). The results from internal validation (fitting and testing on the same cohort) are in italics.