Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 21;12(1):e00284. doi: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000284

Table 4.

Diagnostic value of immunological prediction models different clinical stages of gastric cancer

graphic file with name ct9-12-e00284-g009.jpg

Group AUC (95% CI) Pa Pb Se (%) Sp (%) +LR −LR PPV (%) NPV (%) Accuracy (%) Kappa (%)
Training cohort
 Model 1c
  Early stage (I + II) 0.885 (0.845–0.926) <0.001 66.7 94.6 12.4 0.4 64.5 95.1 91.1 60.4
  Late stage (III + IV) 0.874 (0.821–0.927) <0.001 88.1 97.1 30.1 0.1 77.1 97.5 93.5 78.3
 Model 2d 0.012
  Early stage (I + II) 0.869 (0.824–0.906) <0.001 74.7 90.3 7.3 0.3 79.8 91.9 81.5 51.5
  Late stage (III + IV) 0.890 (0.850–0.923) <0.001 70.8 90.3 7.7 0.3 79.2 90.0 81.7 61.3
Validation cohort
 Model 1c
  Early stage (I + II) 0.821 (0.752–0.878) <0.001 76.7 83.3 4.6 0.3 52.3 93.7 82.1 50.9
  Late stage (III + IV) 0.889 (0.829–0.933) <0.001 88.2 83.3 5.3 0.1 58.8 96.3 84.4 60.5
 Model 2d 0.002
  Early stage (I + II) 0.876 (0.813–0.923) <0.001 76.7 80.9 6.8 0.4 79.7 93.6 80.3 47.4
  Late stage (III + IV) 0.900 (0.843–0.942) <0.001 70.6 90.0 7.1 0.3 85.2 90.0 81.8 62.8

AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; LDA, Fisher linear discriminant analysis; LR, logistic regression; +LR, positive likelihood ratio; −LR: negative likelihood ratio; NPV: negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity; TAA, tumor-associated antigen.

a

P values mean comparison between early stage and late stage with the method of De Long et al. (1989).

b

P values are relative to normal controls.

c

The LDA model with 5 anti-TAAs (TP53, SMARCB1, COPB1, SRSF2, and GNAS) entering the model.

d

The LR model with 5 anti-TAAs (GNAS, PBRM1, TP53, COPB1, and ACVR1B) entering the model.