Table 4

Comparisons using different combinations of hospitals for training DLRE to classify liver fibrosis stages in training and validation cohorts

n (P)AUCSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)PPV (%)NPV (%)LR+LR−
Cirrhosis (F4)
 Combo1T221 (27.6%)1.00
(0.99 to 1.00)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
0.0
(0.0 to 0.0)
V177 (20.9%)0.95
(0.92 to 0.98)
86.5
(81.4 to 91.6)
94.3
(90.2 to 98.4)
80.0
(73.8 to 86.4)
96.4
(89.7 to 98.5)
15.1
(14.8 to 15.4)
0.1
(0.1 to 0.2)
 Combo 2T221 (27.6%)1.00
(0.99 to 1.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
0.0
(0.0 to 0.0)
V177 (20.9%)0.98
(0.96 to 0.99)
93.6
(88.4 to 98.8)
93.3
(89.4 to 97.2)
84.6
(79.5 to 89.2)
97.4
(92.6 to 99.2)
13.9
(12.1 to 15.7)
0.1
(0.1 to 0.1)
 Combo 3T221 (27.6%)1.00
(0.99 to 1.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
0.0
(0.0 to 0.0)
V177 (20.9%)0.97
(0.95 to 0.99)
95.2
(92.1 to 98.3)
92.4
(88.2 to 96.6)
81.6
(73.8 to 88.4)
98.2
(94.8 to 99.7)
12.6
(117 to 13.5)
0.1
(0.0 to 0.1)
Advanced fibrosis (≥F3)
 Combo 1T221 (59.7%)0.98
(0.96 to 0.99)
94.7
(91.2 to 98.2)
95.5
(91.7 to 99.3)
96.9
(91.5 to 98.9)
92.4
(87.5 to 96.5)
21.1
(20.4 to 21.8)
0.1
(0.1 to 0.1)
V177 (52.0%)0.97
(0.95 to 0.99)
92.4
(88.7 to 96.1)
95.3
(91.9 to 98.7)
95.5
(90.5 to 97.8)
92.1
(85.6 to 97.8)
19.6
(18.3 to 20.8)
0.1
(0.1 to 0.1)
 Combo 2T221 (59.7%)0.98
(0.97 to 0.99)
95.8
(92.7 to 98.9)
93.9
(90.1 to 97.7)
94.2
(87.5 to 97.8)
95.5
(88.5 to 97.9)
15.6
(14.9 to 16.3)
0.05
(0.0 to 0.1)
V177 (52.0%)0.97
(0.95 to 0.98)
96.2
(92.6 to 98.7)
88.3
(83.5 to 93.1)
93.6
(86.9 to 96.8)
93.0
(96.4 to 96.4)
8.3
(8.0 to 8.5)
0.0
(0.0 to 0.1)
 Combo 3T221 (59.7%)1.00
(0.99 to 1.00)
96.9
(93.8 to 99.9)
99.1
(95.8 to 99.9)
99.2
(97.1 to 100.0)
96.5
(92.5 to 99.7)
106.5
(100.2 to 112.0)
0.0
(0.0 to 0.0)
V177 (52.0%)0.97
(0.96 to 0.99)
93.8
(89.4 to 98.2)
92.2
(87.8 to 96.7)
94.8
(89.5 to 98.6)
90.8
(84.5 to 96.2)
12.0
(10.9 to 13.2)
0.1
(0.1 to 0.1)
Significance fibrosis (≥F2)
 Combo 1T221 (87.3%)1.00
(0.99 to 1.00)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
0.0
(0.0 to 0.0)
V177 (79.1%)0.83
(0.79 to 0.87)
84.3
(80.1 to 88.5)
70.3
(66.8 to 73.9)
91.5
(85.7 to 97.2)
54.2
(49.5 to 59.2)
2.8
(2.6 to 3.1)
0.2
(0.2 to 0.2)
 Combo 2T221 (87.3%)1.00
(0.99 to 1.00)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
0.0
(0.0 to 0.0)
V177 (79.1%)0.86
(0.81 to 0.91)
80.8
(76.2 to 85.4)
80.0
(74.6 to 85.4)
97.6
(92.8 to 99.6)
29.3
(27.1 to 31.5)
4.0
(3.8 to 4.2)
0.2
(0.2 to 0.3)
 Combo 3T221 (87.3%)1.00
(0.99 to 1.00)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
100.0
(99.0 to 100.0)
0.0
(0.0 to 0.0)
V177 (79.1%)0.82
(0.78 to 0.87)
74.1
(69.8 to 78.4)
77.8
(72.4 to 83.2)
96.4
(90.5 to 98.9)
27.5
(25.8 to 29.1)
3.3
(3.2 to 3.5)
0.3
(0.3 to 0.4)
  • Statistical quantifications were demonstrated with 95% CI, when applicable.

  • AUCs obtained by three different combinations of hospitals were statistically compared with each other in each classification and each cohort (*P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001).

  • AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; Combo, combination of hospitals for training and validation cohorts; DLRE, deep learning Radiomics of elastography; LR+, positive diagnostic likelihood ratio; LR−, negative diagnostic likelihood ratio; n, number of patients; NPV, negative predictive value; P, prevalence; PPV, positive predictive value; T, training cohort; V, validation cohort.