Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of model performance and fit

From: Development of a prognostic risk model for clear cell renal cell carcinoma by systematic evaluation of DNA methylation markers

Models Population-based series Hospital-based series TCGA series
n Df AIC C-statistic n Df AIC C-statistic n Df AIC C-statistic
Clinical modela 219 9 681 0.65 42 5 63 0.86 227 7 470 0.75
Prognostic modelb 219c 14 674 0.71 42 10 55 0.95 227 12 475 0.76
  1. a–cPerformance of both the clinical Cox proportional hazards model a (including age at diagnosis, sex, Fuhrman grade, tumor size and TNM stage) and the prognostic biomarker Cox proportional hazards model b (containing age at diagnosis, gender, Fuhrman grade, tumor size, TNM stage, methylation of NEFH, GREM1, GATA5, LAD1, and NEURL). Numbers in the table refer to the number of cases included in the analysis (n), degrees of freedom (Df), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Harrel’s C-statistic (C-statistic). c Lower number of patients due to missing data on methylation status of the included genes