A methodology review on the incremental prognostic value of computed tomography biomarkers in addition to Framingham risk score in predicting cardiovascular disease: the use of association, discrimination and reclassification

Pang, Chun Lap; Pilkington, Nicola; Wei, Yinghui; Peters, Jaime; Roobottom, Carl; Hyde, Chris

doi:10.1186/s12872-018-0777-5

Table 4 Median AUC values and ΔAUC according to different aspects of design and analysis

From: A methodology review on the incremental prognostic value of computed tomography biomarkers in addition to Framingham risk score in predicting cardiovascular disease: the use of association, discrimination and reclassification

	No.	AUC FRS (median)	IQR	P value	No.	AUC FRS + CT (median)	IQR	P value	No.	Δ AUC (median)	IQR	P value
1. Alteration of Framingham model
Major	31	0.64	0.62–0.68		31	0.74	0.71–0.77		30	0.07	0.05–0.15
Minor	42	0.7	0.64–0.74	0.0006	45	0.76	0.68–0.79	0.7271	46	0.05	0.02–0.09	0.015
2. Coronary heart disease measured
Yes	58	0.68	0.62–0.72		61	0.75	0.71–0.78		61	0.06	0.04–0.11
No	15	0.66	0.64–0.68	0.5208	15	0.72	0.68–0.75	0.2452	15	0.05	0.04–0.08	0.5393
3. Explore analysis model
Yes	13	0.75	0.72–0.76		16	0.77	0.71–0.80		16	0.05	0.03–0.06
No	60	0.65	0.62–0.71	< 0.0001	60	0.74	0.71–0.78	0.4559	60	0.07	0.04–0.13	0.0274
4. Population as intended for Framingham
Yes	45	0.68	0.64–0.72		48	0.75	0.71–0.77		48	0.06	0.04–0.11
No	28	0.64	0.63–0.71	0.1841	28	0.74	0.68–0.78	0.5901	28	0.05	0.04–0.12	0.8546
5. Calibration reporting
Yes	19	0.69	0.64–0.72		19	0.74	0.67–0.77		19	0.04	0.01–0.06
No	54	0.67	0.62–0.72	0.1427	57	0.75	0.71–0.78	0.1465	57	0.07	0.05–0.12	0.0007
6. Validation reporting
Yes	22	0.65	0.62–0.70		22	0.74	0.71–0.76		22	0.08	0.05–0.13
No	51	0.68	0.36–0.74	0.0433	54	0.76	0.68–0.78	0.7267	54	0.06	0.04–0.09	0.1231
7. Multivariable documentation
Adequate	52	0.64	0.62–0.71		52	0.74	0.71–0.78		52	0.07	0.04–0.13
Inadequate	21	0.72	0.68–0.75	0.003	24	0.76	0.69–0.78	0.6588	24	0.05	0.03–0.08	0.1002
8. AUC documentation
Adequate	28	0.72	0.64–0.75		28	0.77	0.69–0.80		28	0.05	0.01–0.08
Inadequate	45	0.66	0.62–0.70	0.0018	48	0.74	0.71–0.77	0.3431	48	0.07	0.05–0.13	0.016
9. Reclassification analysis documentation 1
Adequate (reference)	14	0.69	0.62–0.72		17	0.76	0.74–0.78		17	0.06	0.05–0.11
Inadequate or not reported	59	0.67	0.63–0.72	0.3924	59	0.74	0.70–0.74	0.2539	59	0.06	0.03–0.11	0.2032
Inadequate	17	0.64	0.63–0.67	0.095	17	0.73	0.70–0.76	0.1678	17	0.07	0.05–0.11	0.9035
Not reported	42	0.68	0.63–0.72	0.7189	42	0.74	0.71–0.78	0.3885	42	0.05	0.02–0.11	0.0772
10. Reclassification analysis documentation 2
Inadequate	17	0.64	0.63–0.67		17	0.73	0.70–0.76		17	0.07	0.05–0.11
Not reported	42	0.68	0.63–0.72	0.0443	42	0.74	0.71–0.78	0.6452	42	0.05	0.02–0.11	0.0877
11. Types of incremental value threshold
> 2	40	0.68	0.63–0.72		43	0.74	0.68–0.76		43	0.05	0.03–0.08
< 2	33	0.67	0.62–0.75	0.731	33	0.77	0.73–0.83	0.0013	33	0.08	0.05–0.15	0.0034
12. Types of incremental value threshold 2
> 3	12	0.72	0.69–0.74		12	0.76	0.74–0.78		12	0.05	0.04–0.07
< 3	61	0.66	0.62–0.71	0.0158	64	0.74	0.69–0.78	0.2884	64	0.06	0.04–0.11	0.192

AUC area under the operating curve, ΔAUC difference in AUC, CT CT biomarkers, FRS Framingham model, IQR interquartile range
P values generated using Wilcoxan ranksum test

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2261

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmccardiovasculardisorders@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

Contact us