Table 2.

Logistic LASSO-PCR results for four categorical HCP attributes

Model response (significant CV results italicized)Sample sizeSignificant correlation with intracranial volumeTraining accuracy (measure of model fit)CV prediction accuracy (ICV only)CV prediction accuracy (ICV and LCF PCs)Confidence interval [lower, upper] (ICV and LCF PCs)Accuracy p value
Gender1* 840 Yes 0.9405 0.8071 0.8691 0.8452 0.8905
Race2* 760 Yes 0.9632 0.8276 0.9053 0.8842 0.9263
Ethnicity3 833 No 0.9136 0.9136 0.9136 0.8944 0.9316 1.0000
Relationship status4 840 No 0.6679 0.5571 0.5571 0.5226 0.5917 0.7620
Model response (significant CV results italicized)Sample sizeSignificant correlation with intracranial volumeTraining accuracy (measure of model fit)CV prediction accuracy (ICV only)CV prediction accuracy (ICV and LCF PCs)Confidence interval [lower, upper] (ICV and LCF PCs)Accuracy p value
Gender1* 840 Yes 0.9405 0.8071 0.8691 0.8452 0.8905
Race2* 760 Yes 0.9632 0.8276 0.9053 0.8842 0.9263
Ethnicity3 833 No 0.9136 0.9136 0.9136 0.8944 0.9316 1.0000
Relationship status4 840 No 0.6679 0.5571 0.5571 0.5226 0.5917 0.7620
*

The prediction accuracy was statistically significant after applying the false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons.

1

The female-male split in the 840 subjects was 56%–44%, respectively.

2

The white and black subpopulations made up 82% and 18%, respectively, of the 760 subjects reported here.

3

The Not Hispanic/Latino and Hispanic split in the 833 subjects was 91.4%–8.6%, respectively.

4

Relationship status included 44.3% of the population in a “married or live-in relationship” and 55.7% not in such a relationship.

Close Modal