. 2021 Jan 14;27(2):189–207. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i2.189

Table 5.

Predictive performance of each model/score

Prediction model	Training cohort C-index (95%CI)	Validation cohortC-index (95%CI)	P value
Prediction model	Training cohort C-index (95%CI)	Validation cohortC-index (95%CI)	3 vs 1	3 vs 2	3 vs 4	vs 5
1 Clinical model	0.643 (0.613-0.712)	0.629 (0.601-0.678)	0.025^a/0.023^b	0.003^a/0.002^b	0.007^a/0.006^b	0.009^a/0.004^b
2 Radiomics score	0.723 (0.634-0.778)	0.734 (0.641-0.793)
3 CT-based radiomics nomogram	0.844 (0.762-0.901)	0.831 (0.742-0.881)
4 ART score	0.714 (0.632-0.771)	0.690 (0.601-0.761)
5 ABCR score	0.732 (0.646-0.801)	0.701 (0.632-0.789)

Significant difference of C-index between computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics nomogram vs other models/scores in the training cohort.

Significant difference of C-index between CT-based radiomics nomogram vs other models/scores in the validation cohort. CI: Confidence interval; CT: Computed tomography; ART: Assessment for Retreatment with Transarterial Chemoembolization; ABCR: α-Fetoprotein, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, Child-Pugh, and Response.