Table 3 Comparison of the performance of key variables at baseline to identify incident fatty liver at follow up, using established and newly optimized thresholds of each variable*

5.6 (mmol/l)

0.56

24.9%

86.6%

26.4%

85.7%

(0.53–0.59)

(19.2%–31.3%)

(84.5%–88.6%)

(20.4%–33.1%)

(83.5%–87.7%)

90 (cms) men

18.4%

88.5%

31.8%

78.9%

0.56

(12.5%–25.6%)

(85.4%–91.2%)

(22.1%–42.8%)

(75.3%–82.2%)

80 (cms) women

(0.53–0.58)

29%

90.5%

24.7%

92.2%

(18.2%–41.9%)

(87.8%–92.8%)

(15.3%–36.1%)

(89.7%–94.3%)

1.7 (mmol/l)

0.60

35.9%

85.1%

31.6%

87.3%

(0.57–0.64)

(29.4%–42.8%)

(82.8%–87.1%)

(25.8%–38.0%)

(85.2%–89.3%)

30 (IU/l)

32.7%

75.7%

28.1%

79.5%

(men)

0.52

(25.2%–40.9%)

(71.7%–79.4%)

(21.5%–35.4%)

(75.6%–83%)

19 (IU/l)

(0.49–0.56)

32.3%

69.4%

10.2%

90.5%

(women)

(20.9%–45.3%)

(65.4%–73.1%)

(6.31%–15.2%)

(87.4%–93.1%)

158 (x10⁹/l)

0.51

97.6%

3.32%

16.3%

87.8%

(0.49–0.52)

(94.5%–99.2%)

(2.34%–4.57%)

(14.3%–18.5%)

(73.8%–95.9%)

Population–specific thresholds

Cut point

AUROC (95%CI)

Sensitivity (%) (95%CI)

Specificity (%) (95%CI)

PPV (%) (95%CI)

NPV (%) (95%CI)

5.0 mmol/l

0.58

70.8%

45.4%

20.0%

89.0%

(0.55–0.62)

(64.1%–76.9%)

(42.4%–48.4%)

(17.2%–23.1%)

(86.1%–91.5%)

78.8 cms (men)

87.7%

35.2%

28.2%

90.8%

0.68

(81.0%–92.7%)

(30.9%–39.6%)

(24.1%–32.5%)

(85.8%–94.4%)

73.5 cms (women

(0.65–0.71)

72.4%

67.9%

19.1%

95.6%

(59.1%–83.3%)

(63.8%–71.8%)

(14.3%–24.8%)

(93.2%–97.4%)

1.1 mmol/l

0.64

76.1%

52.2%

23.5%

91.9%

(0.61–0.67)

(69.7%–81.7%)

(49.2%–55.2%)

(20.3%–26.9%)

(89.4%–93.9%)

24 (IU/l)

55.8%

60.7%

29.2%

82.5%

(men)

0.54

(47.4%–64%)

(56.3%–65.0%)

(23.9%–34.9%)

(78.3%–86.2%)

13 (IU/l)

(0.51–0.57)

85.5%

27.5%

11.2%

94.6%

(women)

(74.2%–93.1%)

(23.9%–31.3%)

(8.53%–14.4%)

(90.1%–97.5%)

262 (x10⁹/l)

0.56

47.4%

64.9%

20.7%

86.5%

(0.52–0.60)

(40.4%–54.4%)

(62.0%–67.8%)

(17.1%–24.6%)

(83.9%–88.8%)