Establishing a radiomics model using contrast-enhanced ultrasound for preoperative prediction of neoplastic gallbladder polyps exceeding 10 mm

Table 3 Comparison of clinic signature, Rad Signature and the nomogram

Signature	Accuracy	AUC	95% CI	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Precision	Recall	F1	Threshold
Clinic Signature-training	0.723	0.787	0.6677–0.9066	0.778	0.719	0.424	0.920	0.424	0.778	0.549	0.200
Rad Signature-training	0.867	0.922	0.8598–0.9846	0.889	0.862	0.640	0.966	0.640	0.889	0.744	0.188
Nomogram -training	0.867	0.947	0.9026–0.9914	0.944	0.846	0.630	0.982	0.630	0.944	0.756	0.187
Clinic Signature-test	0.806	0.786	0.5807–0.9907	0.714	0.828	0.500	0.923	0.500	0.714	0.588	0.202
Rad Signature-test	0.806	0.808	0.6288–0.9869	0.857	0.793	0.500	0.958	0.500	0.857	0.632	0.233
Nomogram-test	0.667	0.867	0.7282–1.0000	1.000	0.586	0.368	1.000	0.368	1.000	0.538	0.127

Rad Signature = conventional ultrasound combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound radiomic signatures, nomogram = the combined model of clinic signatures, conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound radiomic signatures, AUC = Area Under Curve, CI = confidence interval, PPV = positive predictive value, NPV = negative predictive value

ISSN: 2047-783X