Skip to main content

Table 5 Performance evaluation of XGBoost, the clinic nomogram and the clinic-ML nomogram in the training (first line in each cell) and test set (second line in each cell)

From: Development and validation of a clinic machine-learning nomogram for the prediction of risk stratifications of prostate cancer based on functional subsets of peripheral lymphocyte

Models

Sensitivity

(95% CL)

Specificity

(95% CL)

F1

(95% CL)

AUC

(95% CL)

XGBoost

0.924 (0.883–0.965)

0.680 (0.535–0.825)

0.963 (0.933–0.993)

0.853 (0.743–0.963)

0.927 (0.886–0.968)

0.664 (0.518–0.810)

0.989 (0.980–0.998)

0.842 (0.764–0.919)

Clinic nomogram

0.704 (0.633–0.775)

0.609 (0.458–0.760)

0.870(0.817–0.923)

0.822 (0.703–0.941)

0.700(0.628–0.772)

0.585 (0.432–0.738)

0.897 (0.867–0.926)

0.837 (0.764–0.910)

Clinic-ML nomogram

0.983 (0.963–1.000)

0.713 (0.573–0.853)

0.994 (0.982–1.000)

0.869 (0.764–0.974)

0.985 (0.966–1.000)

0.699 (0.557–0.841)

0.998 (0.996–1.000)

0.864 (0.794–0.935)

  1. Better results are shown in bold