Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jun 18.
Published in final edited form as: Neuroimage. 2014 Aug 28;102(Pt 2):657–665. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.08.041

Table 3. Comparing the results of different logistic regressions.

1st Logistic
regression
2nd Logistic
regression
3rd Logistic
regression
Diagnostic A2Macro BNP BNP
Angiotensinogen IL16 IL16
Apo AII PYY PYY
Apo B TBG TBG
Apo E APO E APO E
Calcitonin PLGF
CK-MB SGOT
Factor VII
FASLG Receptor
FSH
HGF
IL16
Interferon gamma
Induced Protein 10
MCP2
MMP9
PLGF
PYY
Resistin
SGOT
Vitronectin

Sens., Spec.
(DALOO)
100%, 100%
(89.2%, 79%)
94.1%, 81.6%
(91.8%, 81.6%)
92.9, 62.4%
(89.4%, 57%)
Monitoring BMP6 BMP6 BMP6
B2M Eselectin Eselectin
CLU MMP10 MMP10
MMP10 NrCAM NrCAM
NrCAM Leptin
PLGF PLGF
TFF3 TFF3
Thrombospondin1 VCAM

Sens., Spec.
(DALOO)
100%, 100%
(94.1%, 75.5%)
100%, 100%
(91.8%, 93.9%)
92.9%, 69.4%
(92.9%, 91.8%)

1st Logistic regression on 148 proteins.

2nd Logistic regression on proteins that showed significant difference between groups (18 in cross sectional and 64 in longitudinal analysis). (no MRI data used)

3rd Logistic regression on proteins identified from running PICA on the result of 2nd logistic regression and between group comparisons of VBM (9 in cross sectional and 8 in longitudinal).