Fig. 4
Performance of dual-marker detection model compared to cytology and FISH in Cohorts 2 and 3. a, b Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of dual-marker model compared to cytology and FISH test in Cohorts 2 (a) and 3 (b), respectively; statistical significance of the three tests was assessed by χ2 test; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. c, d Detection sensitivity of BC sub-groups by dual-marker model compared to cytology and FISH in Cohorts 2 (c) and 3 (d), respectively; statistical significance of the three tests was assessed by χ2 test; *p < 0.05. e, f Accuracy of the dual-marker detection model compared to FISH and cytology in samples with urinary tract infections in Cohorts 2 and 3, respectively. g, h Distributions of BC risk probabilities between samples with UTI and without UTI in non-BC and BC patients in Cohorts 2 and 3, respectively; each dot represented one sample, and gray lines indicated corresponding mean and 95% confident intervals in each group; the dashed line indicated the model cutoff; unpaired t test was used to analyze statistical significance. i, j Sensitivity of the dual-marker detection model compared to FISH and cytology in BC sample with concurrent genitourinary disorders in Cohorts 2 and 3, respectively