Table 4.
The performance of various methods for distinguishing between ATB and LTBI in Caidian cohort.
| Variables | Cutoff | AUC (95% CI) | Sensitivity (95% CI) | Specificity (95% CI) | PPV (95% CI) | NPV (95% CI) | PLR (95% CI) | NLR (95% CI) | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESAT-6 SFC | 61 | 0.695 (0.660–0.731) | 36.02% (31.31–41.02%) | 90.41% (87.55–92.67%) | 73.22% (66.38–79.11%) | 66.00% (62.41–69.41%) | 3.76 (2.79–5.06) | 0.71 (0.65–0.77) | 67.50% |
| CFP-10 SFC | 76 | 0.757 (0.723–0.790) | 42.20% (37.29–47.28%) | 92.95% (90.40–94.87%) | 81.35% (75.26–86.21%) | 68.84% (65.29–72.18%) | 5.99 (4.28–8.39) | 0.62 (0.57–0.68) | 71.57% |
| TBAg SFC | 89 | 0.800 (0.770–0.830) | 50.54% (45.48–55.59%) | 92.37% (89.74–94.37%) | 82.82% (77.38–87.17%) | 71.95% (68.39–75.25%) | 6.62 (4.82–9.10) | 0.54 (0.48–0.60) | 74.75% |
| Diagnostic model based on BRE | 0.673 | 0.850 (0.823–0.876) | 63.44% (58.43–68.17%) | 90.61% (87.77–92.84%) | 83.10% (78.31–87.01%) | 77.30% (73.77–80.47%) | 6.75 (5.10–8.94) | 0.40 (0.35–0.46) | 79.16% |
| Diagnostic model based on combination of BRE and T-SPOT assay | 0.587 | 0.910 (0.889–0.930) | 78.23% (73.75–82.12%) | 90.02% (87.11–92.33%) | 85.09% (80.92–88.47%) | 85.03% (81.77–87.79%) | 7.84 (6.01–10.22) | 0.24 (0.20–0.29) | 85.05% |
ATB, active tuberculosis; LTBI, latent tuberculosis infection; ESAT-6, early secreted antigenic target 6; CFP-10, culture filtrate protein 10; TBAg, tuberculosis-specific antigens; SFC, spot-forming cells; BRE, blood routine examination; AUC, area under the curve; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; CI, confidence interval.