Table 5.

Comparison between the prediction rule and alternative prediction methods in the validation cohort

Prediction method	Predictors	Score range or risk groups	AUC (95% CI)	P value
This study	Age, sex, H. pylori infection, PG I/II ratio, G-17, pickled food, and fried food.	0 to 25	0.757 (0.729 to 0.786)	Reference
ABC method by Miki9*	H. pylori infection, PG I and PG I/II ratio.	Groups A, B, C and D	0.527 (0.476 to 0.579)	<0.001
ELISA-based ABC method in China5 6†	H. pylori infection, PG I and PG I/II ratio.	Groups A, B, C and D	0.575 (0.522 to 0.629)	<0.001
Five markers-based method by Tu et al 5	H. pylori infection, PG I, PG II, PG I/II ratio and G-17.	0 to 21	0.589 (0.548 to 0.630)	<0.001

*Subjects were classified into 1 of 4 risk groups based on the results of the two serologic tests, anti-H. pylori IgG antibody titres and the PG I and II levels: group A [H. pylori(−) and PG(−)], group B [H. pylori(+) and PG(−)], group C [H. pylori(+) and PG(+)] and group D [H. pylori (−) and PG(+)]. For the PG method, the cut-off points for identifying the risk of gastric cancer should be ≤70 ng/mL for PG I and ≤3.0 for the PGI/II ratio.

†The risk stratification method was the same as the ABC method by Miki except the definition of abnormal PG, that is, ≤70 ng/mL for PG I and ≤7.0 for the PGI/II ratio.

AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; G-17, gastrin-17; H. pylori, Helicobacter pylori; PG, pepsinogen.