Table 4 Logistic regression models and diagnostic utility measures to identify individuals with ALPL variants
Variables included | B | Odds ratio (95% CI) | P value | Diagnostic utility measures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1: | ALP < 25 | ALP: − 1.62 | 0.2 (0.05–0.54) | < 0.01 | S: 57%; Sp: 85%; PPV: 80%; NPV: 66%; +LR: 3.99; −LR:0.5; AC: 71% |
C: − 0.72 | 0.48 (0.18–0.99) | 0.06 | |||
Model 2: | ALP < 25 + PEA > 30 | ALP: − 1.82 | 0.16 (0.04–0.54) | < 0.01 | S: 71%; Sp: 86%; PPV: 83%; NPV: 75%; +LR: 4.99; −LR: 0.33; AC: 79% |
PEA: − 2.43 | 0.09 (0.02–0.27) | < 0.001 | |||
C: − 1.42 | 0.24 (0.07–0.63) | < 0.01 | |||
Model 3: | ALP < 25 + PLP > 180 | ALP: − 1.38 | 0.25 (0.05–0.93) | 0.02 | S: 100%; Sp: 86%; PPV:88%; NPV: 100%; +LR: 6.99; −LR:0; AC: 93% |
PLP: − 2.81 | 0.06 (0.01–0.22) | 0.04 | |||
C: − 1.51 | 0.22 (0.04–0.65) | < 0.001 | |||
Model 4: | ALP < 25 + PLP > 180 + PEA > 30 | ALP: − 2.3 | 0.1 (0.01–0.29) | 0.02 | S: 100%; Sp: 86%; PPV:88%; NPV: 100%; + LR: 6.99; −LR:0; AC: 93% |
PLP: − 3.30 | 0.04 (0.01–0.2) | < 0.01 | |||
PEA: − 2.94 | 0.05 (0.01–0.25) | < 0.01 | |||
C: − 2.83 | 0.06 (0.01–0.29) | < 0.01 | |||
Model 5: | ALP < 25 + PLP > 180 + PEA > 30 + C. Pain + Dental ab | ALP: − 2.27 | 0.02 | ||
PLP: − 3.72 | < 0.01 | ||||
PEA: − 3.82 | < 0.02 | ||||
CP:2.34 | 0.16 | ||||
DA: − 0.76 | 0.55 | ||||
C: − 3.27 |