. 2016 Mar 14;85(2):249–254. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2016.03.012

Table 2.

The AUC, sensitivity and specificity for ROC curves calculated at optimal cutoff as well as VIP score, P value and fold-change for the 13 metabolites that distinguishes CAP cases from non-CAP controls.

Metabolite Class	Metabolites	AUC	95% CI	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	VIP Score^a	Fold-change^b	P value^c
Acylcarnitine	L-palmitoylcarnitine	0.834	0.783–0.886	69.1	83.1	1.62	+2.98	8.31E-10
Glycosphingolipid	Tetrahexosylceramide (d18:1/16:0)	0.802	0.742–0.861	71.1	79.6	1.52	+2.06	5.46E-13
	Trihexosylceramide (d18:1/16:0)	0.828	0.773–0.882	70.1	82.4	1.62	+2.18	5.44E-16
	Lactosylceramide (d18:1/16:0)	0.847	0.797–0.897	78.4	75.4	1.68	+2.32	6.35E-16
Lysophosphatidylcholine	LysoPC(18:1[9Z])	0.905	0.854–0.955	86.6	92.3	1.71	+2.42	4.18E-09
Lysophosphatidylethanolamine	LysoPE(16:0/0:0)	0.86	0.807–0.913	75.3	89.4	1.69	−2.34	1.81E-27
	LysoPE(18:0/0:0)	0.802	0.743–0.860	74.2	73.9	1.39	−1.95	5.41E-18
	LysoPE(18:1[9Z]/0:0)	0.802	0.745–0.859	73.2	73.9	1.48	−2.20	1.61E-17
	LysoPE(18:2[9Z,12Z]/0:0)	0.829	0.775–0.884	76.3	78.2	1.58	−2.89	1.60E-21
	LysoPE(20:4[8Z,11Z,14Z,17Z]/0:0)	0.824	0.766–0.882	70.1	87.3	1.55	−2.74	4.86E-23
	LysoPE(22:6[4Z,7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z,19Z]/0:0)	0.831	0.774–0.887	72.2	78.9	1.48	−2.78	1.88E-21
Sphingomyelins	SM(d18:0/16:0)	0.861	0.812–0.911	74.2	81.7	1.76	+2.78	8.69E-11
Sphingomyelins	SM(d18:1/16:0)	0.861	0.814–0.908	78.4	82.4	1.69	+1.54	7.97E-24

AUC = area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic curve; CI = confidence interval; LysoPC = lysophosphatidylcholine; LysoPE = lysophosphatidylethanolamine; VIP = variable importance in projection.

VIP score in PLS-DA analyses.

Fold change of CAP cases relative to non-CAP controls. (+) indicates increased level while (-) indicates decreased level in CAP cases when compared to non-CAP controls

Student’s t test.