Table 7.
ROC and Bayes Analyses of Traditional Predictors of IR Compared With the I0*G60
| Predictors With Cutoffs and Parameters | HOMA1 > 2.09 | HOMA2 > 1.24 | QUICKI < 0.341 | ISI Composite < 4.45 | I0*G60 > 1110 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUROC | 0.829 | 0.826 | 0.829 | 0.835 | 0.867 |
| P | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Youden | 0.568 | 0.541 | 0.568 | 0.585 | 0.657 |
| Se-Sp-PPV | 0.757-0.811-0.737 | 0.730-0.811-0.730 | 0.757-0.811-0.737 | 0.811-0.774-0.714 | 0.865-0.793-0.744 |
| FN rate-PTPR-GA | 0.243-4.26-0.789 | 0.270-3.87-0.778 | 0.243-4.26-0.789 | 0.189-4.90-0.789 | 0.135-7.00-0.822 |
The I0*G60 exhibited the best AUROC, the best sensitivity, the lowest FN rate, and the highest PTPR, compared with the respective values of HOMA1, HOMA2, QUICKI, and ISI composite. Second in performance was the ISI composite. HOMA1 and QUICKI had similar performances (slightly better for QUICKI). HOMA2 displayed a weaker performance than HOMA1.
Abbreviations: GA, global accuracy; PPV, positive predictive value; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity.