Table 3.
Comparisons of the models in the training, validation, and mixed groups
|
|
Training set
|
Validation set
|
Mixed group
|
||||||||
|
|
AUC
|
SEN
|
SPE
|
P
value
|
AUC
|
SEN
|
SPE
|
P
value
|
SEN
|
SPE
|
Accuracy
|
| Rad-score 1 | 0.768 (95%CI: 0.695-0.830) | 66.2% | 70.7% | < 0.001 | 0.700 (95%CI: 0.537-0.833) | 77.8% | 47.8% | 0.032 | - | - | - |
| Combined model | 0.955 (95%CI: 0.910-0.981) | 83.1% | 88.0% | 0.134 | 0.930 (95%CI: 0.805-0.986) | 94.4% | 82.6% | 0.594 | 66.6% | 73.3% | 70.0% |
| Rad-score 2 | 0.940 (95%CI: 0.892-0.971) | 83.1% | 84.8% | 0.918 (95%CI: 0.789-0.981) | 83.3% | 82.6% | 73.3% | 66.6% | 70.0% | ||
The mixed group consisted of 15 double-positive (TDs+LNM+) and 15 single-positive (11 TDs+LNM- and 4 LNM+TDs-) patients. P value: compared with Rad-score 2 by DeLong’s test. Rad-score 1: Rad-score of the main tumor; Rad-score 2: Rad-score of the largest peritumoral nodule; TDs: Tumor deposits; LNM: Lymph node metastasis; AUC: Area under the curve; SEN: Sensitivity; SPE: Specificity.