Integrating ultrasound and serum indicators for evaluating outcomes of targeted immunotherapy in advanced liver cancer

Table 4 Comparison of calibration performance of different models in different groups

	Model	Brier score	HL statistic	HL P value	ECE	MCE
Internal training cohort	TIPM	0.111	3.945	0.861	0.111	0.251
	TNM	0.429	25000	< 0.01	0.353	0.692
	BCLC	0.435	81000	< 0.01	0.433	0.782
	CNLC	0.344	14400	< 0.01	0.416	0.629
	HKLC	0.317	16000	< 0.01	0.318	0.625
	CRAFITY	0.400	36000	< 0.01	0.393	0.636
Internal validation cohort	TIPM	0.086	5.456	0.707	0.221	0.647
	TNM	0.446	40000	< 0.01	0.447	0.833
	BCLC	0.362	10000	< 0.01	0.391	0.722
	CNLC	0.419	40000	< 0.01	0.471	0.937
	HKLC	0.367	90000	< 0.01	0.475	0.925
	CRAFITY	0.423	90000	< 0.01	0.469	0.761
External validation cohort	TIPM	0.098	10.11	0.256	0.102	0.287
	TNM	0.427	25000	< 0.01	0.541	0.702
	BCLC	0.400	49000	< 0.01	0.304	0.75
	CNLC	0.301	10000	< 0.01	0.062	0.684
	HKLC	0.309	49000	< 0.01	0.548	0.714
	CRAFITY	0.403	90000	< 0.01	0.230	0.675

HL: Hosmer-Lemeshow; ECE: Expected calibration error; MCE: Maximum calibration error; TIPM: Target Immunotherapy Predictive Model; TNM: Tumor-node-metastasis; BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; CNLC: China Liver Cancer; HKLC: Hong Kong Liver Cancer; CRAFITY: C-reactive protein and alpha-fetoprotein in immunotherapy.