Table 3.

ROC analysis of CSF parameters discriminating different diagnostic groups in the validation cohort

	Cut‐off point1	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	AUC (95% CI)	+LR2	LR3	P value (individually)	Coefficient (B)	P value (within model)
CSF variables
FTLD (n = 90) vs. CON (n = 55)
MFG‐E8	5975	81	69	0.81 (0.734–0.884)	2.61	0.28	<0.0001	−0.001	<0.0001
tTau	262.5	71	59	0.68 (0.592–0.765)	1.73	0.49	<0.0001	0.019	<0.0001
Aβ 42	886	66	65	0.67 (0.577–0.755)	1.89	0.52	0.001	−0.003	0.008
FTLD vs. CON model	0.594	88	85	0.93 (0.894–0.971)	5.87	0.14	<0.0001
FTLD (n = 91) vs. non‐FTLD dementia models (n = 37)
YKL40	273	72	70	0.74 (0.644–0.833)	2.40	0.40	<0.0001	0.011	0.001
pTau	45.5	78	71	0.82 (0.729–0.911)	2.69	0.31	<0.0001	−0.083	<0.0001
p/tTau	0.134	70	60	0.68 (0.577–0.788)	1.75	0.50	0.001	−13.04	0.017
Age	na	na	na	0.55 (0.444–0.646)	na	na	0.423	−0.062	0.113
FTLD vs. non‐FTLD dementia model	0.636	91	84	0.93 (0.884–0.975)	5.69	0.11	<0.0001
FTLD‐TDP (n = 42) vs. CON (n = 57)
YKL40	259.93	79	70	0.78 (0.690–0.881)	2.63	0.30	<0.0001	0.016	<0.0001
MFG‐E8	6069.5	80	79	0.83 (0.745–0.907)	3.81	0.25	<0.0001	−0.001	<0.0001
Catalase	4.44	70	62	0.71 (0.614–0.815)	1.84	0.48	<0.0001	0.413	0.151
TDP vs. CON model	0.297	90	86	0.94 (0.898–0.989)	6.43	0.12	<0.0001

AUC, area under the curve; CI, confident interval; LR, likelihood ratio; CON, nondemented controls; FTLD, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, n.a, nonapplicable.

¹Selected value of the individual biomarker or combination where the two groups of analysis could be discriminated with the reported sensitivity and specificity.

²Positive likelihood: sensitivity/100‐specificity.

³Negative likelihood: 100‐sensitivity/specificity.

Markers/models achieving sufficient biomarker performance are highlighted in bold.