Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 19;12:641378. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.641378

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Comparison between the diagnostic model and TBAg/PHA ratio for discriminating ATB from LTBI. (A) Scatter plots showing the values of ESAT-6/PHA ratio, CFP-10/PHA ratio, and TBAg/PHA ratio in ATB patients (n=49) and LTBI individuals (n=64). Bars indicated the medians and interquartile ranges. ***P < 0.001 (Mann-Whitney U test). (B) ROC analysis showing the performance of ESAT-6/PHA ratio, CFP-10/PHA ratio, TBAg/PHA ratio, and the diagnostic model in discriminating ATB patients from LTBI individuals. (C) Scatter plots showing the predictive value of diagnostic model in ATB patients with positive T-SPOT result (n=39) and LTBI individuals (n=64). Bars indicated the medians and interquartile ranges. ***P < 0.001 (Mann-Whitney U test). (D) Scatter plots showing the values of ESAT-6/PHA ratio, CFP-10/PHA ratio, and TBAg/PHA ratio in ATB patients with positive T-SPOT result (n=39) and LTBI individuals (n=64). Bars indicated the medians and interquartile ranges. ***P < 0.001 (Mann-Whitney U test). (E) ROC analysis showing the performance of ESAT-6/PHA ratio, CFP-10/PHA ratio, TBAg/PHA ratio, and the diagnostic model in discriminating ATB patients with positive T-SPOT result from LTBI individuals. ESAT-6, early secreted antigenic target 6; CFP-10, culture filtrate protein 10; PHA, phytohemagglutinin; TBAg, tuberculosis-specific antigen; ATB, active tuberculosis; LTBI, latent tuberculosis infection; ROC, receiver operating characteristic; AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval.