108 Chapter 6 Table S2B Effects of image quality on diagnostic performance Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV Accuracy mrTRG Optimal quality 54% 68% 45% 79% 64% Below average quality 60% 60% 43% 76% 60% Effect size (+ 95% CI) and level of significance (p) 0.06(-0.0002;0.13) p=0.06 -0.08(-0.12; -0.05) p<0.001 -0.01(-0.07;0.05) p=0.7 -0.02(-0.06;0.02) p=0.2 -0.04(-0.07;-0.007) p=0.02 modTRG Optimal quality 34% 85% 52% 76% 70% Below average quality 46% 74% 47% 75% 65% Effect size (+ 95% CI) and level of significance (p) 0.12(0.05;0.19) p=0.002 -0.11(-0.14;-0.08) p<0.001 -0.05(-0.11;0.02) p=0.14 -0.01(-0.03;0.01) p=0.4 -0.05(-0.07;-0.03) p<0.001 DWI pattern Optimal quality 31% 88% 57% 76% 71% Below average quality 43% 76% 48% 74% 65% Effect size (+ 95% CI) and level of significance (p) 0.12(0.06;0.17) p<0.001 -0.12(-0.16;-0.08) p<0.001 -0.09(-0.16;-0.01) p=0.03 -0.02(-0.03;0.00002) p=0.06 -0.06(-0.08;-0.04) p<0.001 Split scar Optimal quality 36% 84% 50% 77% 70% Below average quality 37% 74% 43% 73% 63% Effect size (+ 95% CI) and level of significance (p) 0.01(-0.04;0.06) p=0.7 0.10(-0.14;-0.06) p<0.001 -0.07(-0.20;0.07) p=0.34 -0.04(-0.06;-0.02) p<0.001 -0.08(-0.10;-0.05) p<0.001 Note, results were calculated using a complete response as the positive outcome and residual tumor as the negative outcome. CI = Confidence interval. PPV = positive predictive value. NPV = negative predictive value.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw