Table 5

Comparison between the prediction rule and alternative prediction methods in the validation cohort

Prediction methodPredictorsScore range or risk groupsAUC (95% CI)P value
This studyAge, sex, H. pylori infection, PG I/II ratio, G-17, pickled food, and fried food.0 to 250.757 (0.729 to 0.786)Reference
ABC method by Miki9* H. pylori infection, PG I and PG I/II ratio.Groups A, B, C and D0.527 (0.476 to 0.579)<0.001
ELISA-based ABC method in China5 6 H. pylori infection, PG I and PG I/II ratio.Groups A, B, C and D0.575 (0.522 to 0.629)<0.001
Five markers-based method by Tu et al 5 H. pylori infection, PG I, PG II, PG I/II ratio and G-17.0 to 210.589 (0.548 to 0.630)<0.001
  • *Subjects were classified into 1 of 4 risk groups based on the results of the two serologic tests, anti-H. pylori IgG antibody titres and the PG I and II levels: group A [H. pylori(−) and PG(−)], group B [H. pylori(+) and PG(−)], group C [H. pylori(+) and PG(+)] and group D [H. pylori (−) and PG(+)]. For the PG method, the cut-off points for identifying the risk of gastric cancer should be ≤70 ng/mL for PG I and ≤3.0 for the PGI/II ratio.

  • †The risk stratification method was the same as the ABC method by Miki except the definition of abnormal PG, that is, ≤70 ng/mL for PG I and ≤7.0 for the PGI/II ratio.

  • AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; G-17, gastrin-17; H. pylori, Helicobacter pylori; PG, pepsinogen.