Table 3 The prognostic performance of RSF and CHR models integrating same selected radscores and clinical features in predicting LC and OS for LRRC patients after RISI in the training and validation sets. 1Comparison with the performance of CHR model to RSF model in the same datasets. Abbreviations: CHR, Cox hazards regression; RSF, random survival forests; CI, confidence interval.
Dataset | IBS for LC prediction | P value 1 | C-index for LC prediction | P value 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RSF (95% CI) | CHR (95% CI) | RSF (95% CI) | CHR (95% CI) | |||
Training | 0.10 (0.10–0.11) | 0.13 (0.13–0.14) | < 0.01 | 0.91 (0.87–0.93) | 0.82 (0.78–0.87) | < 0.01 |
Validation | 0.13 (0.12–0.14) | 0.16 (0.15–0.17) | < 0.01 | 0.78 (0.74–0.84) | 0.72 (0.63–0.81) | < 0.01 |
IBS for OS prediction | C-index for OS prediction | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Training | 0.10 (0.10–0.11) | 0.14 (0.13–0.14) | < 0.01 | 0.84 (0.80–0.88) | 0.79 (0.74–0.82) | < 0.01 |
Validation | 0.11 (0.10–0.12) | 0.17 (0.13–0.20) | < 0.01 | 0.76 (0.75–0.77) | 0.69 (0.60–0.77) | < 0.01 |
