Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 14, 2022; 28(42): 6045-6055
Published online Nov 14, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i42.6045
Published online Nov 14, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i42.6045
Table 5 Comparison of the predictive performance of the new constructed models (mLPaM and sLPaM) and other models in the assessment of impaired liver reserve function in the prospective validation cohort
AUC (95%CI) | Optimal cut-off | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) | |
mLPaM | 0.869 (0.810-0.929) | 0.240 | 89.1 | 74.4 | 60.85 | 93.86 | 78.94 |
MELD | 0.729 (0.633-0.824) | 9.743 | 43.5 | 96.5 | 93.65 | 59.01 | 67.74 |
ALBI | 0.824 (0.749-0.900) | -2.315 | 78.3 | 76.7 | 63.78 | 87.09 | 77.25 |
PTAR | 0.672 (0.580-0.765) | 1.500 | 89.1 | 45.3 | 30.70 | 93.86 | 54.66 |
LSM (kPa) | 0.782 (0.702-0.862) | 1.500 | 91.3 | 65.1 | 49.93 | 95.15 | 72.33 |
sLPaM | 0.876 (0.812-0.940) | 0.073 | 92.9 | 68.3 | 49.94 | 95.15 | 72.33 |
MELD | 0.803 (0.701-0.904) | 9.187 | 64.3 | 85.6 | 61.54 | 87.00 | 79.98 |
ALBI | 0.836 (0.743-0.929) | -1.897 | 71.4 | 88.5 | 67.44 | 90.27 | 84.22 |
PTAR | 0.666 (0.566-0.767) | 1.500 | 92.9 | 59.6 | 28.43 | 97.98 | 64.50 |
LSM (kPa) | 0.743 (0.653-0.833) | 1.500 | 92.9 | 55.8 | 25.37 | 97.98 | 60.96 |
- Citation: Lai RM, Wang MM, Lin XY, Zheng Q, Chen J. Clinical value of predictive models based on liver stiffness measurement in predicting liver reserve function of compensated chronic liver disease. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(42): 6045-6055
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v28/i42/6045.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i42.6045