Skip to main content
. 2020 Apr 29;10:7302. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64413-6

Table 3.

Sensitivity, false positive rate, specificity and false negative rates for each of the analytical platforms employed and 95% CI.

R2Y Q2Y Sensitivity False negative rate Specificity False positive rate Threshold AUC
TB disease Vs Other diseases

1H NMR

n = 93

0.78 0.30

0.69

(0.56, 0.73)

0.31

(0.27, 0.44)

0.83

(0.73, 0.93)

0.17

(0.07, 0.27)

1.78 0.78

HILIC

n = 107

0.49 0.23

0.59

(0.49, 0.67)

0.41

(0.33, 0.51)

0.89

(0.75, 0.92)

0.11

(0.08, 0.25)

3.69 0.76

Lipidomics ESI−

n = 112

0.47 0.27

0.58

(0.53, 0.64)

0.42

(0.36, 0.47)

0.89

(0.80, 0.96)

0.11

(0.04, 0.20)

3.28 0.78

Lipidomics ESI+

n = 112

0.48 0.23

0.67

(0.60, 0.71)

0.33

(0.29, 0.40)

0.86

(0.75, 0.93)

0.14

(0.07, 0.25)

0.65 0.78
Bacteriologically confirmed TB Vs Other diseases

1H NMR

n = 65

0.92 0.29

0.82

(0.59, 0.88)

0.18

(0.12, 0.41)

0.77

(0.59, 0.94)

0.23

(0.06, 0.41)

−0.90 0.81

HILIC

n = 77

0.63 0.21

0.76

(0.52, 0.81)

0.24

(0.19, 0.48)

0.68

(0.57, 0.86)

0.32

(0.14, 0.43)

−1.12 0.77

Lipidomics ESI−

n = 79

0.66 0.14

0.68

(0.55, 0.77)

0.32

(0.23, 0.45)

0.79

(0.64, 0.95)

0.21

(0.05, 0.36)

−1.65 0.74

Lipidomics ESI+

n = 79

0.68 0.17

0.73

(0.59, 0.82)

0.27

(0.18, 0.41)

0.77

(0.59, 0.91)

0.23

(0.09, 0.41)

−1.47 0.78