Table 2.
AUC (95%CI) | |||
Model | Control group (n = 251) | Case 3-year (PD n = 25) | Case 5-year (PD n = 41) |
1* | LB-Unknown (135) | 0.64 (0.51–0.76) | 0.61 (0.52–0.71) |
LB-No (32) | |||
LB-Yes (84) | |||
2 | LB-Unknown (135) | 0.71 (0.59–0.83) | 0.61 (0.51–0.71) |
LB-No (32) | |||
3 | LB-No (32) | 0.79 (0.67–0.91) | 0.73 (0.62–0.85) |
4** | LB-Unknown (135) | 0.82 (0.76–0.89) | 0.77 (0.71–0.84) |
LB-No (32) |
*We also ran a model by using LB-Yes patients as cases and obtained AUC of 0.63 (0.56–0.70) for 3-year prediction window and AUC of 0.61 (0.55–0.68) for 5-year prediction window. **Controls with LB at autopsy (LB-Yes) were reannotated as PD for model development but excluded from tests of model performance. When we implemented Model 3, among 84 LB-Yes controls, 38 were classified as cases (PD) and 46 as controls). Using this evidence, in Model 4, we rebuilt a model by using these 38 as cases and 46 as controls. In addition, to compare the robustness of Model 4 with Model 3, we further excluded LB-Unknown patients in the AUC calculation and obtained an AUC of 0.91 (0.82–0.99) for 3-year prediction window and 0.80 (0.70–0.90) for 5-year prediction.