Table 4.

Comparative ROC analysis of models for the prediction of HFS.

Model Number	AUC Model 2	AUC Difference Compared to Model 2
7	0.461 (0.301–0.492)	−0.036 (−0.00267–0.099) p = 0.26
8	0.457 (0.429–0.486)	0.090 (0.025–0.155) p = 0.007
9	0.457 (0.429–0.486)	0.157 (0.107–0.208) p < 0.0001
10	0.457 (0.429–0.486)	0.036 (−0.005–0.077) p = 0.085
11	0.457 (0.429–0.486)	0.177 (0.129–0.226) p < 0.0001
12	0.457 (0.429–0.486)	0.164 (0.117–0.210) p < 0.0001
13	0.457 (0.429–0.486)	0.122 (0.057–0.186) p = 0.0002
14	0.457 (0.429–0.486)	0.174 (0.128–0.219) p < 0.0001
15	0.457 (0.429–0.486)	0.161 (0.100–0.222) p < 0.0001

Model 7 = rs895819, model 8 = NM_000110.3:c.1906-14763G>A (rs12022243), model 9 = rs2612091, model 10 = rs12132152, model 11 = rs2612091 + rs12132152, model 12 = rs2612091 + rs12022243, model 13 = rs12022243 + rs12132152, model 14 = rs2612091 + rs12022243 + rs12132152 cutpoint 1, model 15 = rs2612091 + rs12022243 + rs12132152 cutpoint 2. 790 samples were included in the analysis of model 7 and 845 samples in the analysis of models 8–15.