Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Jun 27, 2026; 18(6): 118910
Published online Jun 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.118910
Published online Jun 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.118910
Table 6 Comparison of diagnostic performance between combined prediction model and single computed tomography parameters
| Predictive indicator | Area under the curve | 95%CI | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Positive predictive value (%) | Negative predictive value (%) |
| Combined prediction model | 0.893 | 0.832-0.954 | 87 | 80.1 | 36.4 | 97.9 |
| nPV-HU | 0.812 | 0.726-0.898 | 78.3 | 72.7 | 27.3 | 96.2 |
| PV-HU/aorta-HU | 0.768 | 0.672-0.864 | 73.9 | 71 | 25 | 95.4 |
| Clinical factors model1 | 0.798 | 0.708-0.888 | 73.9 | 75.6 | 28.3 | 95.7 |
- Citation: Zhang H, Zhu B, Bai GJ. Predictive value of portal venous phase computed tomography parameters for anastomotic stricture after D2 gastrectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(6): 118910
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v18/i6/118910.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.118910