BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Retrospective Study
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 7, 2025; 31(33): 108369
Published online Sep 7, 2025. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i33.108369
Table 2 Comparison of diagnostic performance metrics for different machine learning models
Model name
Accuracy
AUC (95%CI)
Sensitivity
Specificity
LR
Training set0.8650.933 (0.9091-0.9574)0.8960.833
Testing set0.9480.986 (0.9670-1.0000)0.8570.963
Naive bayes
Training set0.8750.907 (0.8755-0.9390)0.9110.839
Testing set0.8960.955 (0.9156-0.9938)0.9290.890
SVM
Training set0.8980.965 (0.9483-0.9815)0.8850.911
Testing set0.8650.919 (0.8618-0.9762)0.8570.866
KNN
Training set0.8850.990 (0.9841-0.9951)0.7711.000
Testing set0.8540.905 (0.8435-0.9658)0.0001.000
Random forest
Training set0.9820.999 (0.9984-1.0000)0.9641.000
Testing set0.9170.948 (0.9048-0.9907)0.8570.927
Extra trees
Training set0.5001.000 (0.9995-1.0000)0.0001.000
Testing set0.9270.971 (0.9410-1.0000)0.7140.963
XGBoost
Training set0.9820.999 (0.9977-1.0000)0.9900.974
Testing set0.9170.976 (0.9504-1.0000)0.9290.915
LightGBM
Training set0.9380.983 (0.9736-0.9918)0.9840.891
Testing set0.9270.976 (0.9510-1.0000)0.9290.927
Gradient boosting
Training set0.9300.975 (0.9615-0.9894)0.9640.896
Testing set0.9060.955 (0.9143-0.9951)0.6430.951
AdaBoost
Training set0.8960.980 (0.9701-0.9900)0.8390.953
Testing set0.9480.958 (0.9079-1.0000)0.7860.976
MLP
Training set0.8800.940 (0.9172-0.9634)0.8960.865
Testing set0.9580.990 (0.9743-1.0000)0.9290.963


Write to the Help Desk