Skip to main content
. 2021 May 24;8:33. doi: 10.1186/s40779-021-00326-3

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