Table 2.
Comparison between the LR, CRT and XGBoost models in predicting blood transfusion
| Parameter type | Methods | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | Youden index | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-invasive parameters | XGBoost | 0.705 | 0.66 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.19 | < 0.001 |
| LR | 0.716 | 0.86 | 0.50 | 0.55 | 0.12 | ||
| CRT* | 0.692 | 0.89 | 0.42 | 0.48 | 0.16 | ||
| All parameters | XGBoost | 0.937 | 0.94 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.10 | < 0.001 |
| LR# | 0.797 | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.12 | ||
| CRT#& | 0.816 | 0.69 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.09 |
*Non-invasive parameter prediction, there was a significant difference in the AUC between CRT and the XGBoost model (P < 0.05)
#All parameter prediction, there was a significant difference in the AUC between LR and the XGBoost model (P < 0.05), and there was a significant difference in the AUC between CRT and the XGBoost model (P < 0.05)
&All parameter prediction, there was a significant difference in the AUC between CRT and the LR model (P < 0.05)
AUC area under the curve, XGBoost eXtreme gradient boosting, LR logistic regression, CRT classification and regression tree