Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jul 7.
Published in final edited form as: J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;78(1):245–263. doi: 10.3233/JAD-200396

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Classification performance of AD biomarkers and trending miRNAs. The effects of combining trending miRNAs with APOE ε4 or Aβ42:T-Tau on classification performance (ROCs) are shown for MCI (A, C, E) and AD (B, D, F). AUC increased from 0.639 for predicting MCI using APOE ε4 alone to 0.713 with the trending miRNAs (A), and from 0.620 for predicting AD using APOE ε4 alone to 0.772 with the trending miRNAs (B).AUC increased from 0.758 using Aβ42:T-Tau alone to predict MCI to 0.813 with trending miRNAs (C), and from 0.867 using Aβ42:T-Tau alone to predict AD to 0.903 with trending miRNAs (D). Combining all 3 markers (Aβ42:T-Tau + APOE ε4 + trending miRNAs) showed no meaningful improvement in classification performance over Aβ42:T-Tau + trending miRNAs: AUC increased from 0.813 to 0.819 for predicting MCI, but decreased from 0.903 to 0.898 for predicting AD (F), in both cases only negligible differences. miRNAs, expression levels of the 5 trending miRNAs; APOE, APOE ε4 status; Aβ42:Tau, Aβ42:T-Tau ratio.