TABLE 6.

Diagnostic performance of the models derived from the training cohort and applied to the training cohort (n=166)

	AUC (95% CI)	Threshold	Sensitivity (95% CI)	Specificity (95% CI)	NPV	PPV
Model 1	0.67 (0.59–0.76)	0.20	0.78 (0.62–0.86)	0.54 (0.35–0.67)	0.59	0.74
Model 2	0.73 (0.65–0.81)	0.22	0.80 (0.58–0.89)	0.59 (0.41–0.71)	0.63	0.77
Model 3	0.74 (0.65–0.82)	0.33	0.75 (0.57–0.87)	0.62 (0.44–0.74)	0.59	0.77
Model 4	0.67 (0.58–0.76)	0.24	0.74 (0.53–0.85)	0.58 (0.36–0.71)	0.59	0.73
Model 5	0.74 (0.67–0.83)	0.12	0.85 (0.62–0.93)	0.57 (0.41–0.69)	0.69	0.77
Model 6	0.75 (0.67–0.83)	0.14	0.83 (0.64–0.91)	0.59 (0.34–0.71)	0.69	0.76
Model 7	0.74 (0.65–0.82)	0.34	0.73 (0.53–0.83)	0.64 (0.42–0.76)	0.60	0.76
Model 8#	0.76 (0.68–0.84)	0.25	0.77 (0.54–0.85)	0.69 (0.44–0.81)	0.66	0.80

AUC: area under the curve; NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value. ^#: best performing model.