Table 4

Classification performance of gender-specific reduced {WHR, BMI} predictive models.

(Strategy) Fitted Model

Total % Correct

Sensitivity

Specificity

+ Predictive Value (PPV)

- Predictive Value (NPV)

Model based on Vaud-Fribourg women (n = 572), cross-validated on Ticino women (n = 741).

(0) No

78 ^c

0

100

0

78

Model ^a

(74) ^d

(0)

(100)

(0)

(74)

(1) Linear

78

19

95

53

80

Regression

(76)

(33)

(91)

(55)

(79)

(2) Logistic

78

19

95

53

80

Classification

(75)

(32)

(91)

(54)

(79)

(3) 3-Node

80

40

92

59

84

Reg. Tree ^d

(75)

(45)

(86)

(52)

(82)

(4) 3-Node

81

38

93

62

84

Class. Tree ^e

(75)

(44)

(86)

(53)

(82)

Model based on Vaud-Fribourg men (n = 548), cross-validated on Ticino men (n = 688)

(0) No

62 ^c

100

0

62

0

Model ^b

(64) ^d

(100)

(0)

(64)

(0)

(1) Linear

63

88

24

65

55

Regression

(69)

(91)

(30)

(70)

(65)

(2) Logistic

64

86

29

66

55

Classification

(68)

(88)

(33)

(70)

(60)

(3) 3-Node

65

78

45

70

56

Reg. Tree ^d

(66)

(76)

(47)

(72)

(52)

(4) 5-Node

68

78

51

72

59

Class. Tree ^f

(67)

(78)

(47)

(73)

(54)

^a All women classified as non-dyslipidemic (modal category). ^b All men classified as dyslipidemic (modal category). ^c Resubstitution estimate. ^d (Cross-validation estimate). ^d Same variables and classifications as 3-node, full model regression tree. ^e Same variables and classifications as 3-node, full model classification tree. ^e Same variables and classifications as 5-node, full model classification tree.

Costanza and Paccaud BMC Medical Research Methodology 2004 4:7   doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-7