Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 7;28(29):3960–3970. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i29.3960

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Comparisons of the receiver operating characteristic curves, and fit and usefulness evaluation of Rad-score 2. A: In the training set: Area under the curve (AUC) = 0.768 for Rad-score 1, 0.955 for the combined model, and 0.940 for Rad-score 2; B: In the validation set: AUC = 0.700 for Rad-score 1, 0.930 for the combined model, and 0.918 for Rad-score 2; C: The calibration curve of Rad-score 2 shows good agreement between the predicted and observed risks in the training cohort; D: The decision curve demonstrates that Rad-score 2 obtains more benefit than “treat all”, “treat none”, and Rad-score 1. Rad-score 1: Rad-score of the main tumor; Rad-score 2: Rad-score of the largest peritumoral nodule; AUC: Area under the curve.