Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 21;9(1):e000913. doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2022-000913

Table 3.

Model comparison using ROC curves

Model FL vs non-FL FLG-II vs FLG-I and FLG-0
AUC 95% CI P value AUC 95% CI P value
Bedogni et al 9 0.718 0.67 to 0.77 <0.0001 0.821 0.77 to 0.87 <0.0001
Full model 0.731 0.68 to 0.78 <0.0001 0.843 0.79 to 0.89 <0.0001
Non-invasive 0.731 0.68 to 0.78 <0.0001 0.815 0.76 to 0.87 <0.0001
Without liver enzymes 0.703 0.65 to 0.76 <0.0001 0.809 0.75 to 0.87 <0.0001
Low cost 0.720 0.67 to 0.77 <0.0001 0.817 0.76 to 0.87 <0.0001
With liver enzymes 0.735 0.68 to 0.79 <0.0001 0.842 0.79 to 0.89 <0.0001
With lipid profile 0.702 0.65 to 0.76 <0.0001 0.808 0.75 to 0.86 <0.0001

AUC, area under the curve; FL, fatty liver; FLG, fatty liver grade; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.